Rogers v. Platt’s Empirical Analysis
814 F.2d 683 · 1987
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Thompson v. Thompson (1988), Floyd v. District of Columbia (1997)
10 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738A · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Bell v. Hood · Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and (2) one of the following conditions is met: (A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or (ii) had been the child's home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State; (B)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships. [28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A(c).]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It seems highly unlikely Congress would follow the pattern of the Full Faith and Credit Clause and section 1738 by structuring section 1738A as a command to state courts to give full faith and credit to the child custody decrees of other states, and yet, without comment, depart from the enforcement practice followed under the Clause and section 1738.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.”
2 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.