521 F. Supp. 2d 1140 - Muhlenkamp v. Blizzard’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
April 2019
most recently cited
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11604
Relies on Friedrich v. Friedrich · Mozes v. Mozes · Haim Shalit v. Cheryl Coppe Cheryl Gardner Shalit · Croll v. Croll · Holder v. Holder
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The petition must be filed with the court of record, not the Central Authority, to file within the one-year [period].”); Belay v. Getachew, 272 F.Supp.2d 553, 561 (D.Md.2003) (noting that courts”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.”
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.