United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “IKPCA looks to state family law for purposes of defining ‘parental rights’”
• noting that the admissibility of intrinsic evidence is determined under Fed. R. Evid. 401 and 403
• noting, that, at the time the defendant kidnapped his children, “there existed no court order or other agreement between them affecting custody of the children”
• Burns v. Coca-Cola Enter., Inc., 222 F.3d 247, 256 (6th Cir. 2000)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).