Ann C. Meade v. Frank O. Meade’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Clinton Roy Caldwell v. John Lefaver, Director of the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services of the State of Montana Gwen Farnsworth, Social Worker Russell Francetich, Social Worker and Mineral County (1991), Smith-Helstrom v. Yonker (1996)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd. · American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E · May v. Anderson
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a court of this state determines that the child, or the child and one parent, or the child and a person acting as a parent do not have a significant connection with this state and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships; or (2) a court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if — (1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and (2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination. 28 U.S.C. 1738A(f).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Murphy v. Woerner · Crump v. Crump“The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.