340 Pa. Super. 552 - Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably 427 Pa. Super. 494 - Snyder v. Snyder (1993), 445 Pa. Super. 537 - Miller on Behalf of Walker v. Walker (1995)
43 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1
Relies on Duncan v. State of Louisiana · Bearden v. Georgia · Baldwin v. New York · Codispoti v. Pennsylvania · Muniz v. Hoffman
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The emergency nature of the judicial process pursuant to the Protection from Abuse Act requires that this court act swiftly to prevent continued abuse and deal with contempt situations in an expeditious manner lest the violation giving rise to contempt become a criminal action for homicide.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]here can be no question regarding the nature of the risk the legislature sought to meet in enacting the [PFA] ... We have described the Act as a “vanguard measure dealing with the problems of wife and child abuse.” The legislature recognized that existing legal means were inadequate to address these problems. The primary goal of the Act was therefore not retroactive punishment, but rather “[a]dvance prevention of .physical and sexual abuse.” This purpose is manifest in the emergency provisions of the Act that enable a court to respond quickly and flexibly to advance warnings of abuse.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Notwithstanding any provision of the law to the contrary any sentence for this contempt may include imprisonment up to six months or a fine not to exceed $1,000 or both and the defendant shall not have a right to a jury trial on such a charge.”
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.