234 N.J. Super. 383 - Pullman v. Pullman’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
3
states following
February 2006
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mimkon v. Ford · L. v. G. · 212 N.J. Super. 596 - Thompson v. Vanaman · 210 N.J. Super. 225 - Thompson v. Vanaman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. In the absence of that disruption, the grandparent has no independent cause of action for securing visitation rights. See also Pullman v. Pullman, 234 N.J. Super. 383, 387 , 560 A. 2d 1276 (Ch.Div. 1988); In re Goldfarb, 6 N.J. Super. 543, 547 , 70 A. 2d 94 (Ch.Div. 1949). The United States Supreme Court has deemed that limiting a definition of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thus, when a grandparent has lost the derivative rights to contact with the grandchildren due to disruption of the family unit (emphasis supplied) caused by death, divorce, or separation, the Legislature has provided a vehicle for grandparent to gain visitation rights”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.