Prevot Prevot Prevot’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 7 state decisions

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Mr. Prevot’s flight and his subsequent [custody action] were, paraphrasing [Conforte v. Commissioner, 692 F.2d 587, 590 (9th Cir.1982)], “related components of a general scheme.” He fled to escape his criminal conviction and other responsibilities to court, probation officers, victim and government, and to assemble and hold his family in a refuge beyond the reach of American courts and American responsibilities. In Mr. Prevot’s hands [the custody action] is a tool used to permit him to escape American justice and responsibilities while holding his children with him. Flight was but one step, and [the custody action] the latest link, in a chain of proximately related events that began with the Texas conviction and ended in the district court proceedings in this case.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Henson · 53 F. Supp. 2d 91 - In Re Walsh

2. “Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person ... which opposes its return establishes that— (a) the person ... having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or (b) there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Velez v. Mitsak

3. “No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate the merits of a criminal case after the convicted defendant who has sought review escapes from the restraints placed upon him pursuant to the conviction. While such an escape does not strip the case of its character as an adjudicable case or controversy, we believe it disentitles the defendant to call upon the resources of the Court for the determination of his claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Searle v. Juvenile Court for Williamson County