Crump v. Crump’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2016
18 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. § 1738A
Relies on Mahan & Rowsey, Inc. v. Oklahoma Natural Gas · Pelaes v. United States · People of State of New York Halvey v. Halvey · McDougald v. Jenson · State v. Copeland
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[e]xclusive continuing jurisdiction is not affected by the child’s residence in another state for six months or more. Although the new state becomes the child’s home state, significant connection jurisdiction continues in the state of the prior decree where the court record and other evidence exists and where one parent or another contestant continues to reside. Only when the child and all parties have moved away is deference to another state’s continuing jurisdiction no longer required.” 14 Fam. L.Q. at 215.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'lack of subject matter jurisdiction canmot be stipulated around nor cured by a waiver. A lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and when subject matter [urisdietion] does not exist, neither the parties nor the court can do anything to fill that void.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. (2) A finding of inconvenient forum may be made upon the court's own motion or upon motion of a party or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child. (3) In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others: (a) if another state is or recently was the child’s home state; (b) if another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants; (c) if substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state; (d) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and (e) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the puiposes stated in Section 78-45c-l. (4) Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by e”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Liska v. Liska
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.