Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 761 A.2d 1197 - In Re CS

In Re CS’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably In Re CMS (2005), 2006 Pa. Super. 127 - In Re Adoption of R.J.S. (2006)

52 state decisions

320200020102020decided

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 William L. · Matter of Adoption of Charles EDM, II · 452 Pa. Super. 230 - In Re Child M. · Weber v. Lynch · 391 Pa. Super. 79 - In Re PAB

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

  1. “(a) General Rule. -The rights of a parent in regard to a child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the following grounds: (2) The repeated and continued incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal of the parent has caused the child to be without essential parental care, control or subsistence necessary for his physical or mental well-being and the conditions and causes of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or refusal cannot or will not be remedied by the parent.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand. ... We must employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record in order to determine whether the trial court’s decision is supported by competent evidence.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]ncarceration of a parent does not, in itself, provide sufficient grounds for termination of parental rights; however, an incarcerated parent's responsibilities are not tolled during his incarceration. Parental rights may not be preserved by waiting for some more suitable financial circumstance or convenient time for the performance of parental duties and responsibilities. Further, parental duty requires that the parent not yield to every problem, but must act affirmatively, with good faith interest and effort, to maintain the parent-child relationship to the best of his or her ability, even in difficult circumstances.”
    2 later decisions 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.