Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Abbott Vs. Abbott

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 03, 2010

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

59 entries 7 linked 52 unlinked
Show
  1. Kolovrat Vs. Oregon US Supreme Court · May 01, 1961
  2. Charlton Vs. Kelly US Supreme Court · Jun 10, 1913
  3. Hertz Corp. Vs. Friend US Supreme Court · Feb 23, 2010
  4. Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. Vs. Avagliano US Supreme Court · Jun 15, 1982
  5. Air France Vs. Saks US Supreme Court · Mar 04, 1985
  6. Thomson Vs. Thomson and anr. Kolkata · Jul 21, 1887
  7. Leocal Vs. Ashcroft US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 2004
  8. Syllabus October Term, 2009 Abbott V. Abbott
    Search
  9. s treaty interpretations. See Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano
    Search
  10. is also substantially informed by the views of sister contracting states on the issue, see El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui
    Search
  11. Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Breyer, JJ., joined. Abbott v. Abbott
    Search
  12. Opinion of the Court Abbott V. Abbott
    Search
  13. Supreme Court of the United States No. 08-645 Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott, Petitioner V. Jacquelyn
    Search
  14. The court expressed substantial agreement with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Croll v. Croll
    Search
  15. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits adopted the conclusion of the Croll majority. See Fawcett v. McRoberts
    Search
  16. Gonzalez v. Gutierrez
    Search
  17. CA9 2002). The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has followed the reasoning of the Croll dissent. Furnes v. Reeves
    Search
  18. to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Jan. 17, 2006), App. to Pet. for Cert. in Villegas Duran v. Arribada
    Search
  19. For example, a court may force the custodial parent to pay the travel costs of visitation, see, e.g., Viragh v. Foldes
    Search
  20. Lombardo v. Lombardo
    Search
  21. see Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano
    Search
  22. El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd. v. Tsui
    Search
  23. Yuan Tseng , 525 U. S. 155 , 176 (1999) (quoting Air France v. Saks
    Search
  24. Foxman v. Foxman
    Search
  25. Sonderup v. Tondelli
    Search
  26. to protect access rights. Thomson v. Thomson
    Search
  27. See, e.g., Baran v. Beaty
    Search
  28. Walsh v. Walsh
    Search
  29. and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Abbott v. Abbott
    Search
  30. Stevens, J., Dissenting Abbott V. Abbott
    Search
  31. and we should not lose sight of the import of this term in construing the broad words that follow in its wake. Leocal v. Ashcroft
    Search
  32. s international focus. See Croll v. Croll
    Search
  33. of different words is purposeful and evinces an intention to convey a different meaning. See, e.g. , Russello v. United
    Search
  34. s language is plain and that language precludes the result the Court reaches. See Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano
    Search
  35. Factor v. Laubenheimer
    Search
  36. Corp. v. Huddleston
    Search
  37. quoting Container Corp. of America v. Franchise
    Search
  38. of other signatories, to aid us in understanding the accepted meaning of potentially ambiguous terms. See Zicherman v. Korean
    Search
  39. This may well be correct, but we should not substitute the judgment of other courts for our own. See Olympic Airways v. Husain
    Search
  40. Fawcett v. McRoberts
    Search
  41. in having the ne exeat clause issue resolved in the same way that it is resolved in other countries. Cf. Breard v. Greene
    Search
  42. of Canada, for example, first encountered a ne exeat provision as part of an interim custody order in Thomson v. Thomson
    Search
  43. s sole custodian, in Villegas Duran v. Beaumont
    Search
  44. to National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Jan. 17, 2006), App. to Pet. for Cert. in Villegas Duran v. Beaumont
    Search
  45. Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott, Petitioner V. Jacquelyn
    Search
  46. Croll v. Croll
    Search
  47. See Fawcett v. McRoberts
    Search
  48. Furnes v. Reeves
    Search
  49. Villegas Duran v. Arribada
    Search
  50. Viragh v. Foldes
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial