Norinder v. Fuentes’s Empirical Analysis
657 F.3d 526 · 2011
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2024
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11605 · 42 U.S.C. § 11607
Relies on Abbott v. Abbott · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Mozes v. Mozes · Packman v. Chicago Tribune Co. · Rydder v. Rydder
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of “habitual residence” is to be made on the basis of the everyday meaning of these words rather than the legal meaning that a particular jurisdiction attaches to them, as otherwise forum shopping would come in by the back door — each contestant would seek a forum that would define “habitual residence” in the contestant’s favor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any court ordering the return of a child pursuant to an action brought under section 11603 of this title shall order the respondent to pay necessary expenses incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner, including court costs, legal fees, foster home or other care during the course of proceedings in the action, and transportation costs related to the return of the child, unless the respondent establishes that such order would be clearly inappropriate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ozaltin v. Ozaltin“[T]he judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that— 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 majoritye.g. Ortiz v. Martinez
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.