Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 922 A.2d 929 - In Re DK

In Re DK’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · T.B. v. L.R.M. · T.B. v. L.R.M. · 2006 Pa. Super. 170 - Commonwealth v. Preston

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

  1. “Pennsylvania recognizes the common law doctrine of in loco parentis. `In loco parentis is a legal status and proof of essential facts is required to support a conclusion that such a relationship exists.' T.B. v. L.R.M., 567 Pa. 222 , 786 A.2d 913, 916 (2001). Our Supreme Court has defined in loco parentis as follows: The phrase ` in loco parentis ' refers to a person who puts oneself [sic] in the situation of a lawful parent by assuming the obligations incident to the parental relationship without going through the formality of a legal adoption. The status of in loco parentis embodies two ideas; first, the assumption of a parental status, and, second, the discharge of parental duties.... The rights and liabilities arising out of an in loco parentis relationship are, as the words imply, exactly the same as between parent and child. Peters v. Costello, 586 Pa. 102 , 891 A.2d 705, 710 (2005) (citation omitted). As in loco parentis status provides an individual with the same rights as a parent, it logically follows that an individual standing in loco parentis to a child has the same right to standing as a parent in proceedings pursuant to the Juvenile Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6301, et seq. with respect to that child.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “although Appellant was not the legal custodian of the children [rather DHS had legal custody], he stood in loco parentis to the children at the time of their adjudication and his care and control of them was in question at the hearing[.]”
    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.