Berezowsky v. Ojeda’s Empirical Analysis
765 F.3d 456 · 2014
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 11601 (International Child Abduction Remedies Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 11603
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · Abbott v. Abbott · John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States · Watts v. XL Systems, Inc.
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.
“A removal or retention is wrongful under the Convention when (1) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person ... under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and (2) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Delgado v. Osuna“A shared parental intent requires that the parents actually share or jointly develop the intention. In other words, the parents must reach some sort of meeting of the minds regarding their child's habitual residence, so that they are making the decision together.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taglieri v. Monasky
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.