720 F. Supp. 2d 183 - Haimdas v. Haimdas’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11607
Relies on University of Texas v. Camenisch · Hilton v. Braunskill · Abbott v. Abbott · Friedrich v. Friedrich · United States v. Scop
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The discretionary aspect of this [age and maturity] defense is important because of the potential for undue influence by the person who allegedly wrongfully retained the child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kovacic v. Harris
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.