2002 Pa. Super. 12 - Reefer v. Reefer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[1] the 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] the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and non-custodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it; [and] [3] the availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 57 - Arnold v. Arnold · 2003 Pa. Super. 198 - Dranko v. Dranko

2. “[t]he appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it.... However, this broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or the privilege; of making its own independent determination .... Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the trial court’s factual findings; and thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 386 - Nomland v. Nomland

3. “[E]ven in custody cases involving the relocation of one or both parents, the ultimate objective in resolving the custody matter remains the best interests of the child. The determination of a child’s best interests involves the consideration of all relevant factors that legitimately affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being. It follows then that the factors outlined in Gruber , if deemed relevant and likely to affect the child’s physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual well-being, should also be applied and considered in any custody case involving the relocation of either the custodial or non-custodial parent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 218 - D.K. v. S.P.K.