Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez

572 U.S. 1 (2014)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
L
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez

United States Supreme Court
572 U.S. 1 (2014)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

In 2005, Diana Montoya Alvarez (defendant) and Manuel Lozano (plaintiff) had a child together in London, England. Lozano regularly exercised his custodial rights. In 2008, Alvarez left the child with Lozano while she visited family in New York. When Alvarez returned to London, the child appeared frightened of Lozano. Suspecting Lozano had abused the child, Alvarez took the child to New York the next day without informing Lozano. More than 16 months later, Lozano filed a petition in New York federal district court to return the child to England pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). Although the Hague Convention only required the automatic repatriation of children within the first year following an abduction, Lozano argued the one-year limit should be equitably tolled because Alvarez had concealed the child’s location from him. The district court upheld the one-year limit and denied the petition, holding that the child had settled in New York and that repatriating her to England would be disruptive. Lozano appealed, and both the Second Circuit and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed. Lozano appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)

Concurrence (Alito, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Conflict of Laws

Key Terms