Padilla v. Troxell’s Empirical Analysis
850 F.3d 168 · 2017
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 22 U.S.C. § 9001 · 22 U.S.C. § 9003 · 22 U.S.C. § 9005
Relies on United States v. Parodi · Friedrich v. Friedrich · Chafin v. Chafin · Mallory v. Booth Refrigeration Supply Co. · 134 S. Ct. 1224 - Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Courts have explained that the acquiescence defense often requires more formality than consent; accordingly, to find acquiescence we look to evidence such as testimony in a judicial proceeding, a convincing renunciation of rights, or a consistent attitude over a significant period of time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vite-Cruz v. Sanchez“The consent defense involves the petitioner's conduct prior to the contested removal or retention, while acquiescence addresses whether the petitioner subsequently agreed to or accepted the removal or retention.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Vite-Cruz v. Sanchez
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.