Maxwell v. Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis
588 F.3d 245 · 2009
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 291 · 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Feder v. Evans-Feder · Mozes v. Mozes · Miller v. Miller · Gitter v. Gitter · Silverman v. Silverman
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In cases where there is a dispute regarding a child's habitual residence, the representations of the parties cannot be accepted at face value, and courts must determine habitual residence from all available evidence. Federal courts have considered the following factors as evidence of parental intent: parental employment in the new country of residence; the purchase of a home in the new country and the sale of a home in the former country; marital stability; the retention of close ties to the former country; the storage and shipment of family possessions; the citizenship status of the parents and children; and the stability of the home environment in the new country of residence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“is not simply whether the child's life in the new country shows some minimal degree of settled purpose, but whether the child's relative attachments to the countries have changed to the point where ordering the child's return would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family and social environment in which its life has developed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the child was "habitually resident" in the petitioner's country of residence at the time of removal [or retention]; (2) the removal [or retention] was in breach of the petitioner's custody rights under the law of his home state; and (3) that the petitioner had been exercising those rights at the time of removal [or retention].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sundberg v. Bailey
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.