428 Pa. Super. 515 - Weir v. Weir’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably 448 Pa. Super. 306 - Kaplan v. Cablevision of PA, Inc. (1996), 441 Pa. Super. 194 - Samuel Rappaport Family Partnership v. Meridian Bank (1995)
44 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 In re the Primary Election of May 21, 1991 · Kremer v. Grant · Fried v. Fried · Krenzelak v. Krenzelak · 402 Pa. Super. 101 - Moran v. G. & W.H. Corson, Inc.
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A PFA order may be issued “to bring about a cessation of abuse of the plaintiff....” 23 Pa.C.S. § 6108. “Abuse” as defined by the statute in relevant part, is “the occurrence of one or more of the following acts between [sexual or] intimate partners: (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. ...””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The right to be represented by counsel cannot be equated with the right to receive court-appointed counsel. The right to be represented by counsel in civil proceedings is one accorded to all individuals. However, all civil litigants do not have the right to court-appointed counsel. The PFAA thus cannot be construed as requiring the appointment of counsel for indigent parties."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The [Act] provides that ‘[w]ithin ten days of the filing of a petition under this chapter, a hearing shall be held before the court[.]’ 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 6107(a) (emphasis added). The PFAA’s usage of the term “shall” has been construed as creating a mandatory duty to conduct a hearing on the merits of the petition. Heard v. Heard, 418 Pa.Super. 250, 257 , 614 A.2d 255, 259 (1992).”
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.