McAtee v. McAtee

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the UCCJA was designed to cover situations ... where a child is surreptitiously removed to another state prior to any custody litigation” (citation omitted)
• stating that \the UCCJA was designed to cover situations ... where a child is surreptitiously removed to another state prior to any custody litigation\ (citation omitted)
• noting that although two states may have concurrent jurisdiction to determine child custody, the “home state” and the “significant-connection” state, UCCJA in Sections 6 and 7, W.Va. Code, 48-10-6 and 7 [1981], assures that “only one state will make the custody decision”
• \Justice Frankfurter's concurring opinion ... is widely acknowledged as having set forth the better view and May . . . has been interpreted in accord with that concurrence.\
• “Justice Frankfurter’s concurring opinion ... is widely acknowledged as having set forth the better view and May ... has been interpreted in accord with that concurrence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).