Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 650 FSUPP 205 - Meade v. Meade

Meade v. Meade’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
August 2007
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 2007

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

40198619902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A

Relies on May v. Anderson · People of State of New York Halvey v. Halvey · Ford v. Ford · Kovacs v. Brewer · Middleton v. Middleton

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

  1. “[a] determination must be made whether the second state court (North Carolina) itself has subject matter jurisdiction to decide custody matters. If the second state lacks jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination, it is axiomatic that it lacks authority to modify the prior decree of another state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “However, the existence of jurisdiction in North Carolina to make an initial custody award does not enable the North Carolina court to modify [Illinois'] prior decree unless the requirements of Section 1738A(f)(2) are satisfied. . . .”
    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.