Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2/4/1981

Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pierce v. Pierce

Citations

426 A.2d 555
493 Pa. 292
1981 Pa. LEXIS 659

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

\Our scope of review in a custody matter is of the broadest type. . .\
lower court should have considered father’s uninterrupted care and devotion to daughter, and that the mother’s concern was demonstrated by past neglect and empty promises
parent’s intention to relocate with the child was not the controlling factor in a custody dispute
twelve year olds’ preference for father because “[s]ometimes [my mother] feels cold.... I wouldn’t feel right living with her” found relevant
in deciding a custody dispute, parent’s intention to remove the child from the state was not a controlling consideration
in deciding a custody dispute, parent's intention to remove the child from the state was not a controlling consideration

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: O'Brien, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, Kauffman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

47 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pierce v. Pierce

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Commonwealth ex rel. Pierce v. Pierce
Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-02-22

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.