1999 Pa. Super. 307 - Anderson v. McVay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “broad in that we 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, [sic] 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.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 84 - Geiger v. Yeager · 2006 Pa. Super. 144 - Ketterer v. Seifert

2. “(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.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 6 - Burkholder v. Burkholder · 2003 Pa. Super. 198 - Dranko v. Dranko

3. “1. Whether the trial court erred in determining that the proposed relocation would substantially improve the quality of life for Mother and the minor child. 2. Whether the trial court erred in determining the integrity of Mother’s motives in seeking relocation. 3. Whether the trial court erred in finding the existence of a realistic, substitute visitation schedule that will foster the ongoing relationship between Father and the minor child. 4. Alternatively and assuming that Mother’s relocation petition should be granted, whether the trial court erred by failing to provide Father with additional custodial periods during the school year.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 57 - Speck v. Spadafore