Rm v. Js’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child six months of age or younger, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 255 - T.A.M. v. S.L.M. · 2012 Pa. Super. 233 - M.E.V. v. R.D.V.

2. “(a) General Rule. — Except as otherwise provided in section 5424 (relating to temporary emergency jurisdiction), a court of this Commonwealth has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: (1) this Commonwealth is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this Commonwealth but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this Commonwealth; (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (1) or a court of the home state of the child has declined tó exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum under section 5427 (relating to inconvenient forum) or 5428 (relating to jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct) and: (i) the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this Commonwealth other than mere physical presence; and (ii) substantial evidence is available in this Commonwealth concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships;”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 255 - T.A.M. v. S.L.M. · 2012 Pa. Super. 233 - M.E.V. v. R.D.V.

3. ““The basic tenet of statutory construction requires a court to construe the words of the statute according to their plain meaning.” Grom v. Burgoon, 448 Pa.Super. 616 , 672 A.2d 823, 825 (1996). “Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage[.]” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903. “When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 164 - Commonwealth v. Pombo