Mendoza v. Miranda’s Empirical Analysis
559 F.3d 999 · 2009
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 8 U.S.C. § 1621 (§ 411 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996)
Relies on Plyler v. Doe · Pace v. Superintendent State Correctional Institution at Graterford · Air France v. Saks · Mozes v. Mozes · People v. Olguin
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the age of the child; (2) the stability of the child’s residence in the new environment; (3) whether the child attends school or day care consistently; (4) whether the child attends church [or participates in other community or extracurricular school activities] regularly; (5) the respondent’s employment and financial stability; (6) whether the child has friends and relatives in the new area; and (7) the immigration status of the child and the respondent.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the provisions of this Chapter do not limit the power of a judicial or administrative authority to order the return of the child at any time”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The rationale behind Article 12’s “now settled” defense is that when (“a child has become settled and adjusted in [his new environment, a] forced return might only serve to cause him or her further distress and accentuate the harm caused by the wrongful relocation.”). Beaumont & McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction 203 (1999); see also Perez-Vera Report ¶ 107 (explaining that “it is clear that after a child has become settled in its new environment, its return should take place only after an examination of the merits of the custody rights exercised over it....”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wigley v. Hares
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.