Legal Opinion

Van Dine v. Gyuriska

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 24, 1998No. 103 M.D. Appeal Dkt. 97PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

CAPPY, Justice:

The sole issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Appellant, George Gruyiska, a de novo hearing in a child custody matter. For the reasons which follow, we find that Appellant was entitled to a de novo hearing and thus, reverse the orders of the lower courts.

The relevant facts of this case are as follows. Patricia Van Dine (Appellee) and George Gyuriska (Appellant) have been involved in a custody dispute since their divorce in 1986. In August 1994, Appellee petitioned the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County for…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Melzer v. WitsbergerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Women's Homoeopathic Hospital of Philadelphia CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1958
  3. Ashford v. AshfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1990

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. T.B. v. L.R.M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  3. Lilly v. MarkvanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Buck Hill Falls Co. v. Clifford PressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. In re Ten Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Dollars ($10,680.00)Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API