Ellerbe v. Hooks’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
184 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions — most recently July 2022 · most notably Albright v. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fetters (1980), Charles v. Stehlik (2000)
184 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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Spriggs v. Carson · 249 Pa. Super. 274 - In Re Custody of Hernandez · Commonwealth ex rel. Holschuh v. Holland-Moritz · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Children's Aid Society v. Gard · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Harry v. Eastridge
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]arents have a “prima facie right to custody,” which “may be forfeited if convincing reasons appear that the best interests of the child will be served by awarding custody to someone else.” ... [T]he Superior Court, through Judge Spaeth, articulated the following approach: “When the judge is hearing a dispute between the parents, or a parent, and a third party, ... [t]he question still is, what is in the child’s best interest? However, the parties do not start out even; the parents have a ‘prima facie right to custody,’ which will be forfeited only if ‘convincing reasons’ appear that the child’s best interest will be served by an award to the third party. Thus, even' before the proceedings start, the evidentiary scale is tipped, and tipped hard, to the parents’ side---- We agree that this approach is appropriate. Clearly these principles do not preclude an award of custody to the non-parent. Rather they simply instruct the hearing judge that the non-parent bears the burden of production and the burden of persuasion and that the non-parent’s burden is heavy. Thus where circumstances do not clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent, we believe the less intrusive and hence the proper course is to award custody to the parent or parents.””
17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“By clearly eliminating the presumption per se, and mandating that custody be determined by a preponderance of evidence, weighing parenthood as a strong factor for consideration, custody proceedings would be disentangled from the burden of applying a presumption that merely beclouds the ultimate concern in these cases: the determination of what affiliation will best serve the child's interests, including physical, emotional, intellectual, moral, and spiritual well-being.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“all seven justices, agreed on several principles: `the parent-child relationship should be considered to be of importance in determining which custody arrangement is in the child's best interest,' `special weight' and `deference' should be accorded the parent-child relationship, and the relationship should not be disturbed `without some showing of harm' or unless circumstances `clearly indicate the appropriateness of awarding custody to a non-parent”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.