9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Langendorfer v. Spearmangreen2 sentences2017Having established the appropriate legal framework, we next address Mother’s and Father’s countervailing arguments regarding whether Father satisfied the particularized notice requirements we outlined in Langendorfer, supra and its progeny. 2017Having established the appropriate legal framework, we next address Mother’s and Father’s countervailing arguments regarding whether Father satisfied the particularized notice requirements we outlined in Langendorfer, supra and its progeny. | 1 | 6 |
P.H.D. v. R.R.D.green2 sentences2023To support his argument, Father relies on P.H.D. v. R.R.D., 56 A.3d 702, 707-08 (Pa. Super. 2012) (vacating part of the contempt order that purported to relate to a custody modification, because father had no notice that custody would be an issue at the contempt hearing, which violated his due process rights). 2020Id. at 707-708 . | 1 | 2 |
J.M. v. K.W.green1 sentence2022Therefore, “it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to transfer custody from one party to the other as a contempt sanction and … custody can be modified only where the parties receive advance notice that custody is to be an issue at the contempt hearing and modification is based upon the - 12 - J-A07033-22 determination of the child’s best interest.” Id. at 1269 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Choplosky v. Choploskygreen1 sentence2022Nevertheless: Under appropriate circumstances, a trial court may modify a custody order temporarily pursuant to Rule 1915.13.6 See Choplosky[ v. Choplosky, 584 A.2d 340, 343 (Pa.Super. 1990)] (“‘special relief’ may in some cases be appropriate (and necessary) where the situation is such that, for example, temporary modification of custody or visitation rights would preserve the well-being of the children involved while the parties prepare to resolve more permanently the question of where and/or with whom the children should remain”); 23 Pa.C.S. § 5323(b) (“The court may issue an interim award | 1 | 1 |
Guadagnino v. Montiegreen2 sentences2005Id. at 306, 308-09 ; see also Guadagnino v. Montie, 435 Pa.Super. 603 , 646 A.2d 1257 (1994). 2005Id. at 306, 308-09 ; see also Guadagnino v. Montie, 435 Pa.Super. 603 , 646 A.2d 1257 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.