Cunningham v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently November 2010
14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 255th Judicial District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Hanson v. Denckla · Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · Wheeler v. District Court in & for City & Co. of Denver · Peterson v. Peterson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Superior Court of the State of New Jersey has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if: (1) This State (i) is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child’s home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this State because of his removal or retention by a person claiming his custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to live in this State; or (2) It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this State assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this State, and (ii) there is available in this State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships____”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ganz v. Rust“Under section 11.56, the only issue that the Texas court could have determined when shown that there was a prior custody proceeding in another state was whether that state was exercising “jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this subchapter [the UCCJA].” Section 11.56 ... When a sister state is already exercising jurisdiction in conformity with the UCCJA at the time of filing in Texas, the only power that the trial court has is to dismiss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. Blake“When a sister state is already exercising jurisdiction in conformity with the U.C.C.J.A. at the time of filing ... the only power that the [second] trial court has is to dismiss.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.