From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.
Etter v. Rose
Pennsylvania Superior Court
684 A.2d 1092 (1996)
- Written by Brittany Frankel, JD
Facts
Michael L. Etter (plaintiff) and Wanda Rose (defendant) were divorced and had one son, a minor. Although Etter was in prison, he wished to visit with his minor son. Etter filed a request for visitation, and Rose objected. In light of Rose’s objections, the trial court denied Michael’s request. In making its decision, the trial court relied upon its policy of denying a request for a minor’s visitation with an incarcerated noncustodial parent if the custodial parent raises an objection. Etter appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Tamilia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
