Khan v. Fatima’s Empirical Analysis
680 F.3d 781 · 2012
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Pennsylvania v. Ritchie · Coy v. Iowa · Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano · Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons · Sale v. Haitian Centers Council, Inc.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[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“find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law separately.”
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.