In Re Jws’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
February 2019
most recently cited
8 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 158 N.C. App. 441 - In Re McKinney · IN THE MATTER OF JD · 151 N.C. App. 690 - In Re Brode · 126 N.C. App. 764 - Matter of Van Kooten · In re N.R.M.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the child is present in this State and ... it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“addresses the jurisdictional requirements for initial child-custody determinations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Walz v. Walz · In Re Ku-Sg“that a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if: (1) This State is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding, and the child is absent from this State but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this State; (2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this State is the more appropriate forum under G.S. 50A-207 or G.S. 50A-208, and: a. The child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this State other than mere physical presence; and b. Substantial evidence is available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; (3) All courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (1) or (2) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this State is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under G.S. 50A-207 or G.S. 50A-208 ; or (4) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision (1), (2), or (3).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Walz v. Walz
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.