427 Pa. Super. 494 - Snyder v. Snyder’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Coburn v. Coburn (1996), Putman v. Kennedy (2006)
61 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 337 Pa. Super. 58 - Ingrassia Const. Co., Inc. v. Walsh · Pennsylvania Railroad v. Pittsburgh · Commonwealth v. Allen · 393 Pa. Super. 566 - Taylor v. Celotex Corp. · 264 Pa. Super. 53 - Cipolla v. Cipolla
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Abuse." The occurrence of one or more of the following acts between family or household members, sexual or intimate partners or persons who share biological parenthood: * * * (5) Knowingly engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts toward another person, including following the person, without proper authority, under circumstances which place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury. The definition of this paragraph applies only to proceedings commenced under this title and is inapplicable to any criminal prosecutions commenced under Title 18 (relating to crimes and offenses).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]n appellate court is not bound by findings of fact made by the trial court which are unsupported in the record, nor is it bound by the court’s inferences drawn from the facts. However, on issues of credibility and weight of the evidence, an appellate court defers to the findings of the trial judge, who has had the opportunity to observe the proceedings and the demeanor of the witnesses. Only where it finds that the custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record ... will an appellate court interfere with the trial court’s determination. Therefore, unless the trial court’s ruling represents a gross abuse of discretion, an appellate court will not interfere with its order awarding custody.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) General rule. The court may grant any protection order ... to bring about a cessation of abuse of the plaintiff or minor children. The order or agreement may include: (7) Ordering the defendant to temporarily relinquish to the sheriff the defendant’s weapons which have been used or been threatened to be used in an incident of abuse against the plaintiff or the minor children and prohibiting the defendant from acquiring or possessing any other weapons for the duration of the order ....”
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.