286 Pa. Super. 171 - In Re Arnold’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably 299 Pa. Super. 504 - In Re Wesley J. K. (1982), 301 Pa. Super. 239 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Newcomer v. King (1982)
30 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth Ex Rel. Spriggs v. Carson · 240 Pa. Super. 382 - Gunter v. Gunter · 226 Pa. Super. 229 - Commonwealth ex rel. Grillo v. Shuster · 250 Pa. Super. 168 - Spells v. Spells · Com. Ex Rel. Myers v. Myers
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is axiomatic that the polestar of any custody proceeding is the best interests of the child, a term which encompasses her spiritual, physical, emotional and intellectual well being. In re Custody of White, 270 Pa.Super. 165 , 411 A.2d 231 (1979); In re Custody of Neal, 260 Pa.Super. 151 , 393 A.2d 1057 (1978); Shoup v. Shoup, 257 Pa.Super. 263 , 390 A.2d 814 (1978); Commonwealth ex rel. Scott v. Martin, 252 Pa.Super. 178 , 381 A.2d 173 (1977); Commonwealth ex rel. Cutler v. Cutler, 246 Pa.Super. 82 , 369 A.2d 821 (1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“So as to facilitate [our] broad review, we have consistently emphasized that the hearing court must provide us ... with a complete and comprehensive opinion which contains a thorough analysis of the record and specific reasons for the court’s ultimate decision, [citations omitted] ... We have often noted that the hearing judge is in a far superior position to determine matters of credibility, and to evaluate the attitude and sincerity of the witnesses. [citations omitted] Such an advantage is negated, however, when the trial court fails to enunciate its findings on credibility, or reveal the details of its decision. While we might review the record and reach a conclusion without the benefit of a proper analysis by the lower court, such a course would serve neither the best interests of the children nor the Commonwealth. We are loath to pass judgment on something as precious and intrinsically valuable as a child’s welfare without every possible piece of information bearing on the subject. It is for this reason that we demand a full record and a probing analysis thereof. In re Arnold, 286 Pa.Super. 171, 174-75 , 428 A.2d 627, 628-29 (1981).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.