2009 Pa. Super. 60 - Cramer v. Zgela’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “It appears from the testimony provided at the hearing by prison personnel that [DOC] and the individual prisons employ the types of qualified professionals that the legislature intended would be used to provide the counseling and evaluations contemplated by the statute. Therefore, we conclude that the court should direct its request for counseling and evaluation to the prison authorities. If the prison authorities conclude that they are not obligated to accept the appointment by the court, they can raise this matter in another action.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. D.R.C. v. J.A.Z. · Drc v. Jaz

2. “Consideration of criminal conviction.- — If a parent has been convicted of or has pleaded guilty or no contest to an offense as set forth below, the court shall consider such criminal conduct and shall determine that the parent does not pose a threat of harm to the child before making an order of custody, partial custody or visitation to that parent: (1) 18 Pa.C.S. Ch. 25 (relating to criminal homicide)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. D.R.C. v. J.A.Z. · Drc v. Jaz

3. “HB 1781 amends the State's custody laws to help prevent children from being subjected to abuse in custody and visitation arrangements. Most of us assume that certain protections or safeguards already exist in the law. Unfortunately, they do not. We assume that most courts would give paramount consideration to the needs of the child, with the child's safety being a basic need. However, it appears that the power, rights, and control of parents over their children sometimes conflict with the protection and safety of the children. The legislation that we are considering today would give the courts discretion in making custody decisions but would require the courts to consider each parent and adult household member's present and past violent or abusive conduct in making an order for custody or visitation. In cases where a parent has been convicted of a serious crime that could endanger the child's welfare, the court must appoint and take testimony from a qualified professional concerning the provision of counseling. In these cases, the court would also have to determine that the parent no longer poses a threat of harm to the child before issuing a custody or visitation order. The court is empowered to require subsequent, periodic counseling and reports on the rehabilitation of the parent and well-being of the child. Testimony from the committee's hearing on the bill, correspondence from my own constituents, and recent court cases all point to the need for this legislation. Some ca”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Drc v. Jaz · D.R.C. v. J.A.Z.