2016 Pa. Super. 184 - Rellick-Smith, S. v. Rellick, B.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'Threshold issues of standing are questions of law; thus, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re: Nadzam, A., Appeal of: Domitrovich, J. · S.G. v. J.M.G.

2. “In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of standing is a prudential, judicially[-]created principle designed to winnow out litigants who have no direct interest in a judicial matter. For standing to exist, the underlying controversy must be real and concrete, such that the party initiating the legal action has, in fact, been "aggrieved." The core concept of standing is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not "aggrieved" thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution to his challenge . A party is aggrieved for purposes of establishing standing when the party has a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the outcome of litigation. A party's interest is substantial when it surpasses the interest of all citizens in procuring obedience to the law; it is direct when the asserted violation shares a causal connection with the alleged harm; finally, a party's interest is immediate when the causal connection with the alleged harm is neither remote nor speculative.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re: Nadzam, A., Appeal of: Domitrovich, J.