Hofmann v. Sender’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.3d 282 · 2013
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Abbott v. Abbott · Chafin v. Chafin · Mozes v. Mozes · Design Strategy, Inc. v. Davis · Gitter v. Gitter
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f more than one year has passed [since the date of wrongful removal or retention], a 'demonstra[tion] that the child is now settled in its new environment' may be a sufficient ground for refusing to order repatriation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he now 'settled' exception only applies where the child has been in the destination state for more than one year from the date of the wrongful removal or retention.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
2 later decisions 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.