66 F. Supp. 2d 554 - Croll v. Croll’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Air France v. Saks · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Feder v. Evans-Feder · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Benjamins v. British European Airways
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Hong Kong order dated February 23, 1999 provides that Christina may not be removed from Hong Kong before her 18th birthday without either leave of court or both parents’ consent. Accordingly, ... Mr. Croll had a right, along with respondent, to determine Christina’s place of residence and he had a corresponding right of custody within the meaning of the Convention. Christina’s removal from Hong Kong— her habitual residence — was in violation of her father’s right of custody and was, therefore, wrongful pursuant to the Convention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Croll v. Croll
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.