Mota v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.3d 108 · 2012
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Norton v. Sam's Club · Mozes v. Mozes · In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation · Stanley White Ulysses Brown Donald Swanson v. White Rose Food · Blondin v. Dubois
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ (1) ] it is in breach of rights of custody ... under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal ...; 3 and [ (2) ] at the time of removal ... those rights were actually exercised [by the petitioner], ... or would have been so exercised but for the removal....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hofmann v. Sender“First, the court should inquire into the shared intent of those entitled to fix the child’s residence (usually the parents) at the latest time that their intent was shared. In making this determination the court should look, as always in determining intent, at actions as well as declarations. Normally the shared intent of the parents should control the habitual residence of the child. Second, the court should inquire whether the evidence unequivocally points to the conclusion that the child has acclimatized to the new location and thus has acquired a new habitual residence, notwithstanding any conflict with the parents’ latest shared intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hofmann v. Sender
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.