Federal and New York State Hague Convention Cases from 1988 through May 20, 2015.
Note: This page titled "ICARA Cases to May 20, 2015" contains cases which go back to 1988, and are organized by (1) Subject Matter; (2) Alphabetically; and (3) Unreported Cases. You may access a case summary by clicking on the link that contains the case name. The links to the decisions may be discontinued at any time.
The page, titled Federal Hague Convention Child Abduction Cases to date contains Hague Convention cases from 2011 to date.
Attorneys Fees, Necessary Costs and Travel Expenses
In re Bates, High Court of Justice, No. CA 122/89, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London WC2, February 23, 1989 [United Kingdom]
Notice of Commencement of Proceedings
Brooke v Willis, 907 F. Supp. 57 (S.D. N. Y. 1995) [United Kingdom] [ Notice of proceedings] Egervary v. Rooney, 80 F.Supp.2d 491 (E. D. Pa. 2000) [Hungary] Green v Green, NYLJ, 7-6-93, P.33, Col. 2, Sup. Ct., Kings Co. (Rigler, J.)
A.A.M. v. J.L.R.C.,--- F.Supp.2d ----, 2012 WL 75049 (E.D.N.Y.) [Mexico] [Rights of Custody] [Patria Potestas] Abbott v Abbott, --- S.Ct. ----, 2010 WL 1946730 [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Abbott v Abbott, 495 F.Supp.2d 635 (W.D. Texas, 2007) [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Abbott v Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008) [Chile] [Rights of Custody] Aguirre v Calle, 2008 WL 4461931 (E. D. N. Y.) [Colombia] [Patria Potestas Creates Rights of Custody] Aldinger v. Segler, 263 F.Supp.2d 284 (D. Puerto Rico) [Germany] [Rights of Custody]
Caution Should be Exercised in Citing Opinions Designated As "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent"
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule, 28 U.S.C.A. 32.1 (a) now provide that a court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been: (i) designated as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like; and (ii) issued on or after January 1, 2007.
Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007. The citation of unpublished opinions issued before January 1, 2007, continues to be governed by the local rules of the circuits, which counsel is advised to refer to before citing such opinions. See Advisory Committee Notes. Under Rule 32.1(b), a party who cites an opinion of a federal court must provide a copy of that opinion to the court of appeals and to the other parties, unless that opinion is available in a publicly accessible electronic database -- such as a commercial database maintained by a legal research service or a database maintained by a court. A party who is required under Rule 32.1(b) to provide a copy of an opinion must file and serve the copy with the brief or other paper in which the opinion is cited. Rule 32.1(b) applies to all unpublished opinions, regardless of when they were issued.
Rule 32.1 was added April. 12, 2006, effective December 1, 2006 and is a new rule addressing the citation of judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated by a federal court as "unpublished," "not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like. Rule 32.1 addresses only the citation of federal judicial dispositions that have been designated as "unpublished" or "non-precedential" -- whether or not those dispositions have been published in some way or are precedential in some sense. Every court of appeals has allowed unpublished opinions to be cited in some circumstances, such as to support a contention of issue preclusion or claim preclusion. But the circuits have differed dramatically with respect to the restrictions that they have placed on the citation of unpublished opinions for their persuasive value. Some circuits have freely permitted such citation, others have discouraged it but permitted it in limited circumstances, and still others have forbidden it altogether.
See also Local Rule U.S. Ct. of App. 2nd Cir. 0.23, 28 U.S.C.A. 0.23. Dispositions by Summary Order (a) Use of Summary Orders The demands of contemporary case loads require the court to be conscious of the need to utilize judicial time effectively. Accordingly, in those cases in which decision is unanimous and each judge of the panel believes that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion (i.e., a ruling having precedential effect), the ruling may be by summary order instead of by opinion. (b) Precedential Effect of Summary Orders Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. (c) Citation of Summary Orders (1) Citation to summary orders filed after January 1, 2007, is permitted. (A) In a brief or other paper in which a litigant cites a summary order, in each paragraph in which a citation appears, at least one citation must either be to the Federal Appendix or be accompanied by the notation: "(summary order)." (B) Unless the summary order is available in an electronic database which is publicly accessible without payment of fee (such as the database available athttp://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/), the party citing the summary order must file and serve a copy of that summary order together with the paper in which the summary order is cited. If no copy is served by reason of the availability of the order on such a database, the citation must include reference to that database and the docket number of the case in which the order was entered.