Egervary v. Rooney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendants seek to moot the obvious conclusion that plaintiff's rights under ICARA were violated by arguing that Oscar would have been immediately returned to Ms. Ko-vacs even if a hearing had been held that day.... The Court cannot accept that conclusion. Mr. Egervary had compelling, though not necessarily dispositive, arguments that could have been presented if he had been afforded notice and opportunity to be heard. The Court makes no finding as to whether Mr. Egervary would have prevailed on any of these arguments. Such a finding would not be possible without a full evidentiary hearing ... It is nonetheless clear that plaintiff was deprived of any opportunity to present these arguments.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Velez v. Mitsak · 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 - Egervary v. Young

2. “Dear Mr. Rooney, This is to thank you for effecting the prompt return of the child Oscar Eger-vary to his mother in Hungary under the auspices of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and to briefly review the background of the case ... Oscar Egervary was born in the United States July 4, 1992, and at the age of approximately eight months was taken by his parents to Hungary, where both mother and father are citizens. (The father is also a U.S. citizen.) The parents separated in the summer of 1993 and the mother was granted temporary custody by a Hungarian court pending the couple’s divorce. Hungarian police reports indicate that in December 1993 the father and his brother accosted Mrs. Egervary in the street in Budapest and kidnapped the child. Mrs. Egervary attempted to hang on to the departing car, but fell off. She immediately filed a police report, and soon after filed an application for the return of her son under the Hague Convention which was received in this office in March, 1994. At the time of his abduction, Oscar Egervary had lived for 10 months in Hungary and eight months in the United States. In addition, the information provided this office indicated that the parents had intended resettlement in Hungary, in that their car and personal effects had been sent there and an apartment in Pennsylvania had been vacated. It seemed clear that Oscar Egervary’s country of habitual residence was Hungary and that Mrs. Egervary’s claim of ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 - Egervary v. Young

3. “• “Plaintiffs claim against the Federal Defendants boils down to the contention that they offered legal advice that prompted the plaintiffs former wife, a litigant in court proceedings, to seek and obtain relief from Judge Nealon that violated plaintiffs due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.” See Federal Defendants’ Br. (May 11, 2001) at 25. • “Plaintiffs claim is limited to the allegation that the Federal Defendants offered inaccurate legal advice to counsel for the plaintiffs former wife concerning the type of relief she, as a litigant, could request from the court.” Id. at 26. • “[T]he Federal Defendants, neither of whom was a lawyer, allegedly gave this legal advice to defendant Rooney, who was a lawyer and who represented the plaintiffs wife in all court proceedings ... it is inherently illogical to suggest that lay persons should be held responsible for providing allegedly inaccurate legal advice to a lawyer ...” Id at 27-28. • “[TJhere plainly was no ‘clearly established’ law that defendants Young and Schuler, neither of whom are lawyers, could be held responsible for violating plaintiff Egervary’s constitutional rights for supposedly advising defendant Rooney ...” Id. at 30. • “In this case, defendants Young and Schuler may not be held responsible for any of the actions by defendant Rooney in seeking an order from Judge Nealon for the seizure of the plaintiffs son and then executing the Court’s order, merely because the Federal Defendants supposedly advised hi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 - Egervary v. Young