Simcox v. Simcox’s Empirical Analysis
511 F.3d 594 · 2007
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2024 · most notably Baran v. Beaty (2008), Souratgar v. Fair (2013)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Friedrich v. Friedrich · Feder v. Evans-Feder · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Felix Blondin v. Marthe Dubois · Richard Charles Whallon Jr v. Diana Lynn
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Moreno v. Zank · Neumann v. Neumann“If the ... court is presented with unequivocal evidence that return would cause the child a “grave risk” of physical or psychological harm ... then it would seem less appropriate for the court to enter extensive undertakings than to deny the return request. The development of extensive undertakings in such a context could embroil the court in the merits of the underlying custody issues and would tend to dilute the force of the Article 13(b) exception.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, habitual residence should not be determined through the technical rules governing legal residence or common law domicile. Instead, courts should look closely at the facts and circumstances of each case. Second, because the Hague Convention is concerned with the habitual residence of the child, the court should consider only the child’s experience in determining habitual residence. Third, this inquiry should focus exclusively on the child’s past experience. Any future plans that the parents may have are irrelevant to our inquiry. Fourth, a person can have only one habitual residence. Finally, a child’s habitual residence is not determined by the nationality of the child’s primary care-giver. Only a change in geography and the passage of time may combine to establish a new habitual residence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.