Guzzo v. Cristofano’s Empirical Analysis
719 F.3d 100 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc. · Greenlaw v. United States · Chafin v. Chafin · Mozes v. Mozes · Friedrich v. Friedrich
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question in these cases is not simply whether the child's life in the new country shows some minimal degree of settled purpose, but whether we can say with confidence that the child's relative attachments to the two countries have changed to the point where requiring return to the original forum would now be tantamount to taking the child out of the family and social environment in which its life has developed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[ (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....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hollis v. O'Driscoll
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.