Darín v. Olivero-Huffman’s Empirical Analysis
746 F.3d 1 · 2014
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603 · 42 U.S.C. § 11607
Relies on Abbott v. Abbott · Feder v. Evans-Feder · United States v. Dure · Mozes v. Mozes · Richard Charles Whallon Jr v. Diana Lynn
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he ultimate determination of habitual residence is a mixed question of law and fact to which we will apply de novo review” (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original)); Maxwell v. Maxwell, 588 F.3d 245 , 253 (4th Cir.2009) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Berezowsky v. Ojeda“the party seeking relief must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the abductor 'wrongfully removed or retained [the child] within the meaning of the [Hague] Convention.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“strong presumption in favor of returning [the] wrongfully removed or retained child”
1 later decision 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.