Velez v. Mitsak’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We recognize that [the father] and [the child] have left the jurisdiction and that our ruling necessitates their return. It may well be that after a full evidentiary heai’ing, the trial court wall order [the child’s] return to Spain. Nevertheless, we cannot gloss over the niceties of the constitutional protections which are implicated here. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In the Interest of J.G. · In Re JG

2. “Where a child has been wrongfully removed or retained in terms of Article 3 and, at the date of the commencement of the proceedings before the judicial or administrative authority of the Contracting State where the child is, a period of less than one year has elapsed from the date of the wrongful removal or retention, the authority concerned shall order the return of the child forthwith. The judicial or administrative authority, even where the proceedings have been commenced after the expiration of the period of one year referred to in the preceding paragraph, shall also order the return of the child, unless it is demonstrated that the child is now settled in its new environment. Id. (citing Hague Convention, art. 12).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Guimaraes v. Brann

3. “it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . ., either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Jjl-P.