Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Ford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding fee award clearly inappropriate where the respondent was financially insecure and fee shifting might have harmed the interests of the child
• finding it inappropriate to award attorneys’ fees when petitioner was represented pro bono and respondent had a low salary, total savings of slightly over $2,000, 80 percent of respondent’s income went toward housing, and most of the rest went toward providing for the child
• “The equitable doctrines invoked by respondent are not mentioned in the Convention and are therefore not properly brought as defenses to a petition for return of the child.”
• “The equitable doctrines invoked by respondent are not mentioned in the Convention and are therefore not properly brought as defenses to a petition for return of the child.”
• “The equitable doctrines invoked 5 by respondent are not mentioned in the Convention and are therefore not properly brought 6 as defenses to a petition for return of the child.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).