Jordan v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in refusing a party’s request for the court to order the mother to undergo a psychological examination prior to the custody hearing
• holding, “[i]t is clearly within the court’s discretion whether to order an evaluation” under Rule 1915.8
• holding “[i]t is clearly within the court’s discretion whether to order an evaluation”
• interpreting Rule 1915.8(a) and stating that “[i]t is clearly within the court’s discretion whether to order an evaluation.”
• appellate interference is allowed only where it is found that the child custody order is manifestly unreasonable as shown by the evidence of record
• \It is clearly within the court's discretion whether to order an evaluation.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).