2006 Pa. Super. 57 - Speck v. Spadafore’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. “[0]ur scope is of the broadest type and our standard is abuse of discretion. This Court must accept findings of the trial court that are supported by competent evidence of record, as our role does not include making independent factual determinations. In addition, with regard to issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, this Court must defer to the trial judge who presided over the proceedings and thus viewed the witnesses first hand. However, we are not bound by the trial court’s deductions or inferences from its factual findings. Ultimately, the test is ‘whether the trial court’s conclusions are unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 205 - Fuehrer v. Fuehrer

2. “1. The court must assess 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 a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent. 2. Next, the court must establish the integrity of the motives of both the custodial and the non-custodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it. 3.Finally, the court must consider the availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will adequately foster an ongoing relationship between the child and the non-custodial parent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 205 - Fuehrer v. Fuehrer