Karpenko v. Leendertz’s Empirical Analysis
619 F.3d 259 · 2010
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Younger v. Harris · Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp. · Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Didon v. Castillo“(1) when the removal or retention took place; (2) the child's habitual residence immediately prior to such removal or retention; (3) whether the removal or retention breached the petitioner's custody rights under the law of the child's habitual residence; and (4) whether the petitioner was exercising his or her custody rights at the time of removal or retention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Monzon v. La Roca“we are not aware of any authority that would support dismissal of a Hague Convention petition on grounds of unclean hands. The conduct of the parents, other than the claim of abduction or retention, is not mentioned in the Hague Convention except to the extent that [it] may be relevant to one of the affirmative defenses.”
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.