green
Positive treatment
20.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of A.J.M., Appeal of: Lynch Law Group
(2×)
“Where mental competency is at issue, the real question is the condition of the person at the very time he executed the instrument or made the gift in question.” Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1969) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis, W. v. Lewis, C.
For support, he cites Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1969) for the proposition that “a person’s mental capacity is best determined by spoken words and conduct, and the testimony of persons who observed such conduct on the date in question outranks testimony as to observations made prior to and subsequent that date.” Husband’s reliance is misplaced.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lewis, W. v. Lewis, C.
For support, he cites Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1969) for the proposition that “a person’s mental capacity is best determined by spoken words and conduct, and the testimony of persons who observed such conduct on the date in question outranks testimony as to observations made prior to and subsequent that date.” Husband’s reliance is misplaced.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wano, A. v. Edmundson, J.
“Where mental competency is at issue, the real question is the condition of the person at the very time he [or she] executed the instrument….” Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d. 649, 651 (Pa. 1969). -5- J-S50031-18 Competency to enter contracts is presumed, and the burden rests upon the one who seeks to show a lack of competency.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marrone, M. v. Dalonzo, F.
See Appellant’s Brief at 12-19; Appellees’ Brief at 8-16.3 In Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1969), an action for rescission of a trust, the Supreme Court stated: We said [in Girsh Trust, 189 A.2d 852 (Pa. 1963),] that where mental competency is at issue, the real question is the condition of the person at the very time he executed the instrument or made the gift in question.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frank Forba v. Thomas Jefferson University Ho
As the District Court explained, “a person’s mental: capacity is best determined by his spoken words and his conduct, and ... the testimony of persons who observed such conduct on the date in question out-ranks testimony as to observations made prior to and subsequent to that date.” Sobel v. Sobel, 435 Pa. 80 , 254 A.2d 649, 651 (1969); see also Elliott v. Clawson, 416 Pa. 34 , 204 A.2d 272, 273 (1964) (rejecting medical testimony that contracting part was not competent where, inter alia, the witness “did not examine him on the day of the conveyance”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gigli, B. v. Gigli, B.
Bd., 517 A.2d 523, 526 (Pa. 1986) (overruled in part on other grounds). “[W]here mental competency is at issue, the real question is the condition of the person at the very time he [or she] executed the instrument….” Sobel v. Sobel, 254 A.2d 649, 651 (Pa. 1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Taylor v. Avi
Girsh Trust, 410 Pa. 455 , 189 A.2d 852 (1963). “[W]here mental capacity is at issue, the real question is the condition of the person at the very time he executed the instrument or made *298 the gift in question.” Sobel v. Sobel, 435 Pa. 80, 82-83 , 254 A.2d 649, 651 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
S. Kelly v. Boeing Inc
See Sobel v. Sobel, 435 Pa. 80 , 254 A.2d 649, 651 (1969) (explaining that a person’s mental capacity is best determined by his spoken words and his conduct, as well as the testimony of persons who observed such conduct on that date).
discussed
Cited "see"
Moser v. DeSetta
(2×)
See generally Sobel v. Sobel, 435 Pa. 80, 82-83 , 254 A.2d 649, 651 (1969) (mental competency to make a gift).
discussed
Cited "see"
Touraine Partners v. Kelly
See Sobel v. Sobel, 435 Pa. 80, 84 , 254 A.2d 649, 651 (1969); Yuhas v. Schmidt, 434 Pa. 447, 453 , 258 A.2d 616, 619 (1969); Agsco Equipment Corp. v. Borough of Green Tree, 297 Pa.Superior Ct. 33, 36, 443 A.2d 284, 286 (1981); Frowen v. Blank, 266 Pa.Superior Ct. 145, 147, 403 A.2d 585, 586 (1979). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Berger
v.
Silliman
v.
Silliman
Appeal, No. 203.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 27, 1969.
Arnold Sousa, with him Jacob Philip, and Philip & Wimmer, for appellant., Sidney R. Webb, for appellee.
Acknowledged, Against, Appellee, Bell, Brien, Cohen, Contract, Eagen, Jones, Pomeroy, Property, Ratified, Roberts, Sale, That, Wife.
Published
Opinion
Per Curiam,In this action for specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of real estate, the parties stipulated[*631] that the only issue involved is whether the wife-appellee was a party to the agreement. The chancellor determined that she signed as a witness rather than a party and the record adequately supports this finding.
Decree affirmed at appellant’s costs.
Mr. Justice Roberts dissents and would grant specific performance against the appellee-wife on the grounds that the record clearly establishes that she acknowledged and ratified the written contract for the sale of the property.