Beers v. Beers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The appellate court is not bound by the deductions or inferences made by the trial court from its findings of fact, nor must the reviewing court accept a finding that has no competent evidence to support it... However, the broad scope of review does not vest in the reviewing court the duty or privilege of making its own independent determination ... Thus, an appellate court is empowered to determine whether the trial court’s incontrovertible factual findings support its factual conclusions, but it may not interfere with those conclusions unless they are unreasonable in view of the court’s factual findings; and, thus, represent a gross abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 80 - Billhime v. Billhime · 2004 Pa. Super. 412 - Goldfarb v. Goldfarb

2. “Given its place in the context of a best interests determination, the value of Gruber lies not so much with the formulation of a novel inquiry concerning the relocation of the primary family unit, but with its insights into why the elements of that inquiry might be critical. Because here there were two, not one, primary family units preceding institution of the custody award, both must be scrutinized similarly in the examination of competing custodial environments .... Indeed, this Court has held that the trial court should be permitted to decide custody before the child is relocated, in order to assure that the custodial parent fulfills his/her responsibility toward the interest of the noncustodial parent in maintaining a relationship with the child.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2000 Pa. Super. 178 - Hurley v. Hurley

3. “The determination of whether Gruber is appropriate should lie within the discretion of the trial court while being mindful of geographic distance and whether that distance is significant enough to alter the relationship between the noncustodial parent and the children, as well as whether the relocation entails different educational, cultural, and religious facilities, and whether or not the same trial court would retain jurisdiction over the children.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2006 Pa. Super. 361 - Masser v. Miller