Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 So. 2d 927 - Db v. Ma

975 So. 2d 927 - Db v. Ma’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738A · 42 U.S.C. § 663 (§ 463 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Kulko v. Superior Court of California in and for City and County of San Francisco · May v. Anderson · 229 Ga. App. 571 - In the Interest of D. R. W. · 886 So. 2d 45 - Kingvision Pay-Per-View, Ltd. v. Ayers · Nelson v. Robinson

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

  1. “"A child custody or visitation determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if- "(1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"We begin our analysis with Alabama's version of the UCCJEA, which states in part: "`(a) A court of this state shall recognize and enforce a child custody determination of a court of another state if the latter court exercised jurisdiction in substantial conformity with this chapter or the determination was made under factual circumstances meeting the jurisdictional standards of this chapter and the determination has not been modified in accordance with this chapter.' "§ 30-3B-303, Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added). Furthermore, the relevant portions of § 30-3B-205, Ala.Code 1975, provide: "`(a) Before a child custody determination is made under this chapter, notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the standards of Section 30-3B-108 must be given to all persons entitled to notice under the law of this state as in child custody proceedings between residents of this state, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated, and any person having physical custody of the child. ' "(Emphasis added.) The adoptive couple point out that Nebraska has also adopted the UCCJEA, and its corresponding statutes provide almost identical terms. For example, § 43-1242, Neb.Rev.Stat., provides: "`(a) Before a child custody determination is made under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the standards of section 43-1233 shall be given to all persons entitled to notice under the law of ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “document which provided that in the event the birth father came forward or asserted his interest in the child, even after the time of placement, that the State of Alabama could require these adoptive parents to return the child to the State of Nebraska for further determination of the rights of the putative father. Mrs. Dyer's affidavit at paragraph #6 states that the Nebraska I.C.P.C.'s position is that the natural father had complied with all applicable Nebraska law pertaining to claiming paternity and seeking custody of . . . [the child].'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.