Library of Unreported Federal Hague
Convention Decisions - Arranged by Country and Topic with Slip
Copy of Opinion - Hague Convention
on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Go to
Library of All Reported Federal and New York Cases decided under the
Hague Convention on the Civil
Aspects of International Child Abduction
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Exercised in Citing Opinions Designated As "unpublished," "not for
publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent"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written dispositions that have been: (i) designated as "unpublished,"
"not for publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like;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Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished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 The citation of unpublished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all unpublished opinions, regardless of when they were issued.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been designated by a federal court as "unpublished," "not for
publication," "non-precedential," "not precedent," or the like.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have been designated as "unpublished" or "non-precedential" -- whether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unpublished opinions to be cited in some circumstances, such as to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 at
http://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.
Go To Top of Page
Library of Unreported Federal
Hague Convention Decisions - Arranged by Country and Topic with
Links to Slip Copy of Opinion -
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
Alonzo v. Claudino, 2007 WL 475340 (M.D.N.C) [Honduras][ Habitual
Residence]
Application of Hirtz v Hirtz, 2004 WL 1588227 (E. D. Pa.) [Germany]
[Attorneys Fees and Costs]
Application of Nicholson v. Nicholson, 1997 WL 446432 (D. Kan.)
[Germany] [Habitual Residence]
Burns v
Burns, No. Civ. A. 96-6268 (E.D. Pa., Dec 6, 1996) [United Kingdom]
[Full Faith & Credit]
Clausier v. Mueller, 2004 WL 906514 (N. D. Tex.) [France][ Habitual
Residence]
Copeland v
Copeland, 134 F3d 362 (4th Cir., 1998) [France] [Colorado River
Abstention]
Daunis v Daunis, 222 Fed. Appx 32 (2d Cir.,
2007) [Italy] [Habitual Residence]
Flynn v Boarders, 2007 WL 862548 (M. D. Kentucky) [Ireland]
[Attorneys Fees and Costs]
Freiderich v Thompson, 1999 WL 33951234 (M. D. N. C.)[ Germany]
[Attorneys Fees and Costs]
Grammes v Grammes, 2003 WL 22518715 (E. D. Pa.)) [Canada][ Habitual
Residence]
Grijalva v. Escayola, 2006 WL 3827539 (M.D. Fla.) [Mexico] [Rights
of Custody-Exercise]
Hirts v Hirts, 153 Fed. Appx. 137 (3d Cir.
2005) [Germany] [Attorneys Fees and Costs]
In re
Interest of Zarate, No. 96 C 50394, N.D. Ill., Dec 23, 1996 [Mexico]
[Rights of Custody]
In re Krishna v. Krishna, 1997 WL 195439 N. D. Cal.) [ Australia]
[Grave risk of harm. Consent]
Isaac v. Rice, 1998 WL 527107 (N. D. Miss.) [Israel] [Sufficient Age
and Maturity]
Janzik v Shand, (N.D., Ilinois, November 22, 2000) [Germany] [No
Jurisdiction to Enforce Rights of Access]
Jimenez v Lozano, 2007 WL 527499 (W. D. Wash.) [Mexico] [Rights of
Custody]
Lebiedzinski v Crane, 2005 WL 906368 (D. Alaska) [Poland] [Attorneys
Fees and Costs]
Leites v
Mendiburu, 2008 WL 114954 (M.D. Fla.) [Argentina] [Wishes of Child]
[Grave Risk of Harm]
McCubbin v McCubbin, 2006 WL 1797922 (W. D .Mo.) [Australia]
[Habitual Residence]
Olagues v Kousharian, 177 Fed. Appx. 537
(9th Cir. 2006) [New Zealand] [Moot]
Olguin v Santana, 2004 WL 1752444 (E. D. N. Y.) [Mexico] [Rights of
Custody - Exercise of Rights]
Ostevoll v. Ostevoll, 2000 WL 1611123 (S.D. Ohio) [Norway][ Failure
to Prosecute. Motion to Change Venue]
Prinz v Faso, 2004 WL 1071761 (W. D. N. Y.) [Habitual Residence]
[Germany]
Robert v. Tesson , 2005 WL 1652620 (S.D. Ohio) [France] [Habitual
Residence]
Robert v Tesson, 2006 WL 1401651 (S. D. Ohio) [France] [Habitual
Residence]
Samholt v Samholt, 2006 WL 2128061 (M. D. N. C.) [Habitual
Residence] [Sweden]
Silverman v. Silverman, 2004 WL 2066778 (D. Minn) [Attorneys Fees
and Costs]
Small v. Clark, 2006 WL 2024955 (M.D. Fla.) [Belize] [Habitual
Residence]
Tabacchi v. Harrison, 2000 WL 190576 (D. Ill) [Italy] [Consent]
Villata v
Massie, No. 4:99cv 312-RH (N. D. Fla. Oct. 27, 1999) [Chile]
[Habitual Residence]
Wasniewski v Grzelak-Johannsen, 2007
WL 2344760 (N.D. Ohio) [Poland] [Habitual Residence]
|
