Blinkoff v. Blinkoff’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2000
8 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 250 Pa. Super. 194 - Provident National Bank v. Rooklin · 295 Pa. Super. 169 - Hattoum v. Hattoum · 317 Pa. Super. 8 - Tettis v. Boyum · 242 Pa. Super. 151 - Marcus v. Diulus · 332 Pa. Super. 67 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Taylor v. Taylor
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he state in which the child immediately preceding the time involved lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. Periods of temporary absence of any of the named persons are counted as part of the six-month or other period.” See NDCC § 14-14-02(5).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Anderson“"It is in the best interest of the child that a court of this Commonwealth assume jurisdiction because: (i) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with this Commonwealth; and (ii) there is available in this Commonwealth substantial evidence concerning the present or future care, protection, training and personal relationships of the child . . ."”
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.