409 Pa. Super. 143 - Plowman v. Plowman’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably 441 Pa. Super. 1 - Sprague v. Walter (1995), 453 Pa. Super. 324 - Gancas v. Schultz (1996)
75 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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Goldberg v. Kelly · 400 Pa. Super. 174 - Gruber v. Gruber · 305 Pa. Super. 179 - Corra v. Coll
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The potential advantages of the proposed move, economic or otherwise, and the likelihood the move would improve substantially the quality of life for the custodial parent and the children and is not the result of a momentary whim on the part of the custodial parent; 2. The integrity of the motives of both the custodial and noncustodial parent in either seeking the move or seeking to prevent it; and 3. The availability of realistic, substitute visitation arrangements which will foster adequately an ongoing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a hearing must be held either before the move, or under exigent circumstances, within a reasonable time thereafter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. B.K. v. J.K. · B.K. v. J.K.“we cannot redress this error [ i.e. , another trial judge's decision to permit the mother and child to relocate on an interim basis without a hearing] by eliminating all the proceedings that have occurred until this point. Our review must be based on the best interests of the child at the time of the present hearing. In custody proceedings, the paramount concern is the welfare of the children[;] all [other] considerations, including the rights of the parents, are subordinate to the children's physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, and emotional well being. We cannot ignore the last two years of the child's life in Maryland as though they never occurred. Therefore, we find that the trial court was correct in determining that it would be useless to pass judgment on the prior decision, but could appropriately consider the effect of that decision on the welfare of the minor child.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. E.B. v. D.B.
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.