1999 Pa. Super. 249 - Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 2010 · most notably 2006 Pa. Super. 53 - Collins v. Collins (2006), 2005 Pa. Super. 78 - Landis v. Landis (2005)
25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 400 Pa. Super. 174 - Gruber v. Gruber · 406 Pa. Super. 487 - Lee v. Fontine · Rowles v. Rowles · 413 Pa. Super. 173 - Kaneski v. Kaneski · 453 Pa. Super. 324 - Gancas v. Schultz
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [T]he potential advantages of the proposed move and the likelihood that the move would substantially improve the quality of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent; (2) [T]he integrity of the motives of both the custodial and non-custodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it; and (3) [T]he availability of realistic substitute arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e are not bound by deductions and inferences drawn by the trial court from the facts found, nor are we required to accept findings which are wholly without support in the record. On the other hand, our broad scope of review does not authorize us to nullify the fact-finding function of the trial court in order to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Rather, we are bound by findings supported by the record, and may reject conclusions drawn by the trial court only if they involve an error of law, or are unreasonable in light of the sustainable findings of the trial court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e are reviewing a request for change of custody and relocation in the context of an equal shared custody arrangement. As such, Gruber’s mandate that the court is to focus on the primary physical custody family, and what is “advantageous to the primary unit is obviously in the best interests of the children,” is not applicable in this case. Here, there exists two primary family units, and, as such, we conclude that “both must be scrutinized similarly in the examination of competing custodial environments....Id. at 210-11 (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.