344 Pa. Super. 399 - Heddings v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chambers v. Mississippi · Granza v. United States · 320 Pa. Super. 444 - Burch v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Robinson v. Robinson · 94 Wis. 2d 450 - Muller v. State
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.
“... provide us with a complete record and a comprehensive opinion which contains a thorough analysis of the record and specific reasons for its ultimate decision. Cady v. Weber, 317 Pa.Super. 481 , 464 A.2d 423 (1983); Pa.R.C.P. No. 1915.10 — Explanatory Note — 1981. The appellate courts require an opinion which demonstrates ■that the trial judge in a custody case has analyzed the record as a whole and has dealt with significant factual disputes in a manner which will enable the appellate courts to understand the reasons for the decision and to make an intelligent evaluation of the opinion and of the testimony; the judge need not discuss the testimony of each witness or make citations to the transcript. Sandra L.H. v. Joseph M.H., 298 Pa.Super. 409 , 444 A.2d 1241 (1982). The lower court’s opinion need not discuss all the evidence presented or state why some evidence is regarded as more persuasive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Human nature being what it is, people are not likely to concede the existence of facts which would make them objects of social disapproval in their community unless the facts are true. In other words, we find a declaration against interest to be an out-of-court statement that was made by a non-party who has since died or has become unavailable as a witness; that concerned facts of which declarant had personal knowledge; that involved an interest (whether pecuniary, proprietary, penal or social) of declarant that was so palpable that it would naturally have been present in the declarant’s mind; and finally, that was against such interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Heddings v. Steele
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.