89 Pennsylvania opinions name it 9 courts 1900–2025 19 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schenk v. Schenkgreen2 sentences2020This Court has held “[o]rders of property distribution are not appealable until entry of a final divorce Decree[.]” Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 638 (Pa.Super. 2005). -6- J-A26039-20 Wife specifically appeals from the November 26, 2019 divorce decree, but also sought to file separate appeals from the five orders entered prior to the divorce decree, including the trial court’s January 25, 2018 order indicating that discovery was complete, the February 26, 2019 order denying Wife’s motion for recusal, the February 26, 2019 order denying Wife’s Emergency Petition for Special Relief, the April 2019Id. “[W]e measure the circumstances of the case against the objective of effectuating economic justice between the parties and achieving a just determination of their property rights.” Schenk v. Schenk, 880 A.2d 633, 639 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted). ____________________________________________ 1Since Wife’s brief to this Court omitted a statement of the questions involved, we have elected to forgo listing her issues and have instead simply identified and addressed Wife’s claims in the order they are raised in her submission. -2- J-A11025-19 Biese v. Biese, 979 A.2d 892, 895 (Pa. Super | 4 | 4 |
Busse v. Bussegreen2 sentences2023"The purpose of an award of counsel fees is to promote fair administration of justice by enabling the dependent spouse to maintain or defend the divorce action without being placed at a financial disadvantage; the parties must be 'on par' with one another." Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Teodorski, 857 A.2d at 201 ). 2022An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence. ____________________________________________ 3Since the briefing letter directed the parties to identify their briefs in this manner, we use consistent terminology herein. 4In Wife’s brief, she first re-listed Husband’s three issues in her statement of questions, resulting in the issues she raises being numbered IV, V, and VI. -3- J-S01014-22 Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1257 (Pa.Super. 2007) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Mercatell v. Mercatellgreen2 sentences2021Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609, 611 (Pa. Super. 2004). 2007Mercatell v. Mercatell, 854 A.2d 609, 611 (Pa.Super.2004). *1260 ¶39 “The weight to be given to these statutory factors depends on the facts of each case and is within the court’s discretion.” Id. at 611 , citing Gaydos v. Gaydos, 693 A.2d 1368, 1376 (Pa.Super.1997) (en banc). | 2 | 2 |
In Re: Estate of Moskowitz, L.green2 sentences2021“A valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.” Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372, 386 (Pa. Super. 2015). “[T]here must be evidence of an intention to make a [g]ift accompanied by [d]elivery, actual or constructive, of a nature sufficient not only to divest the donor of all dominion over the property, but to invest the donee with complete control.” Id. 2021“A valid inter vivos gift requires donative intent, delivery, and acceptance.” Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372, 386 (Pa. Super. 2015). “[T]here must be evidence of an intention to make a [g]ift accompanied by [d]elivery, actual or constructive, of a nature sufficient not only to divest the donor of all dominion over the property, but to invest the donee with complete control.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Schofieldgreen2 sentences2018With reliance on Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005), Husband contends that Wife has waived any issues she intended to raise on appeal. ____________________________________________ 1The two appeals were consolidated sua sponte by this Court in a per curiam order, dated July 13, 2017. -2- J-S30006-18 Our review of the record reveals that on January 30, 2018, the date the trial court issued its opinion that provides the reasoning underlying its decision to deny Wife’s motion to open the divorce decree, the court also issued an order directing the filing of a Rule 1925(b) stat 2018With reliance on Commonwealth v. Schofield, 888 A.2d 771, 774 (Pa. 2005), Husband contends that Wife has waived any issues she intended to raise on appeal. ____________________________________________ 1The two appeals were consolidated sua sponte by this Court in a per curiam order, dated July 13, 2017. -2- J-S30006-18 Our review of the record reveals that on January 30, 2018, the date the trial court issued its opinion that provides the reasoning underlying its decision to deny Wife’s motion to open the divorce decree, the court also issued an order directing the filing of a Rule 1925(b) stat | 2 | 2 |
Conner, C. v. Holtzinger Conner, K.green2 sentences2024See Conner v. Conner, 217 A.3d 301, 315 (Pa.Super. 2019). 2021Id. at 27-28 (citing Conner, supra.). | 1 | 2 |
Marra v. Marragreen2 sentences1983In so holding, we looked to a line of cases beginning with Heilbron v. Heilbron, 158 Pa. 297 , 27 A. 967 (1893) 7 which stand for the proposition that a divorce a m.e.t. awarding permanent alimony to the wife is a bar to any action for support on behalf of the wife____” Marra v. Marra, 189 Pa.Superior Ct. 180, 184, 149 A.2d 175, 177 (1969). 1974In determining that both the prior support order and the award for permanent alimony could exist as supplementary to each other, the lower court, in its Opinion, states: “It is conceded that all parties, including the Court, conceived the alimony award to be in addition to the Support Order.” In rationalizing the vitality of both support obligations, the court dismissed the “dictum” of Ileilbron v. Heilbron, 158 Pa. 297 (1893), and its progeny, which declared as a general proposition that “[a] decree of divorce a.m.e.t. awarding permanent alimony to the wife is a bar to any action for support | 1 | 2 |
A.A. and A.M. v. Glicken, S.green1 sentence2025See Pa.R.A.P. 903(a) (stating that an appeal must be taken within thirty days from the entry of a final order); A.A. v. Glicken, 237 A.3d 1165, 1168 (Pa.Super. 2020) (“This Court may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte.”). | 1 | 1 |
Goodwin, J. v. Goodwin, S.green1 sentence2024See C.H.L., supra. See also Goodwin, supra. In the absence of an argument section supported by relevant legal authority, Wife’s issue on appeal is waived. | 1 | 1 |
Prol v. Prolgreen2 sentences2023See, e.g., Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547, 555 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating that the trial court’s power to enforce an order concerning equitable distribution arises from Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43, concerning ____________________________________________ 3 The trial judge who heard and decided Wife’s motion to enforce was different than the judge who entered to Final Order in 2013. -6- J-A22001-23 petitions for special relief). 2023See, e.g., Prol v. Prol, 935 A.2d 547, 555 (Pa.Super. 2007) (stating that the trial court’s power to enforce an order concerning equitable distribution arises from Pa.R.C.P. 1920.43, concerning ____________________________________________ 3 The trial judge who heard and decided Wife’s motion to enforce was different than the judge who entered to Final Order in 2013. -6- J-A22001-23 petitions for special relief). | 1 | 1 |
Mundy, T. v. Mundy, A.green1 sentence2023See Mundy v. Mundy, 151 A.3d 230, 239 (Pa.Super. 2016) (stating that mortgage payments made by the wife “were tantamount to rent owed to [the h]usband for [the wife’s] exclusive use of his property”). - 12 - J-A22001-23 savings bonds. | 1 | 1 |
Barrick v. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charitygreen1 sentence2023See id. | 1 | 1 |
Danz v. Danzgreen2 sentences2022See Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2008). 2022See Danz v. Danz, 947 A.2d 750 (Pa. Super. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Andersongreen2 sentences2022The intent of Section 3332 is “to codify the extraordinary circumstances which will outweigh the interests of the parties and the court in finality, and to delimit the time periods which within such circumstances must be established.” Bardine, 194 A.3d at 153 (citing Anderson v. Anderson, 544 A.2d 501, 505 (Pa. Super. 1988)). 2022The intent of Section 3332 is “to codify the extraordinary circumstances which will outweigh the interests of the parties and the court in finality, and to delimit the time periods which within such circumstances must be established.” Bardine, 194 A.3d at 153 (citing Anderson v. Anderson, 544 A.2d 501 , 505 (Pa. Super. 1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Carney, K. v. Carney, D.green1 sentence2021Wife has failed to convince us that “the law has been overridden or misapplied or the judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will[.]” Carney, supra at 131 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brubaker v. Brubakergreen1 sentence2021See Brubaker, supra. In our review, we conclude that the master’s determinations were supported by the record, and thus we conclude Wife’s claim is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Stackhouse v. Zaretskygreen1 sentence2021Although, as Wife observes, both parties agreed to a deferred distribution, see Wife’s brief at 13, Husband might have advocated differently had the issue surfaced earlier in the litigation. -7- J-A07002-21 Stackhouse v. Zaretsky, 900 A.2d 383, 386 (Pa.Super. 2006) (indicating that the intent of the parties governs interpretation and application of agreements as to the disposition of the parties’ assets made in contemplation of divorce). | 1 | 1 |
Lugg v. Lugggreen1 sentence2021Lugg v. Lugg, 64 A.3d 1109, 1112 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
| Larkin v. Metzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Berry v. Berrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| ANTHONY BIDDLE CONTRACTORS, INC. v. Preet Allied American Street, LPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vrabel v. SCHOLLERgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Krauss, C. v. Trane US Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bennett, P. v. Bennett, P.green | 1 | 1 |
| Biese v. Biesegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Carroll v. Avallonegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Walshgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prol v. Prolgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Branton, K. v. Nicholas Meat, LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Harasym v. Harasymgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Falcione v. Cornell School Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Plitka v. Plitkagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dalrymple v. Kilishekgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mescanti v. Mescantigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ciamaichelo v. Independence Blue Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fine v. Checciogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nigro v. Nigrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Laub v. Laubgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moran v. Morangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Heilbron v. Heilbron
green
2 sentences1983In so holding, we looked to a line of cases beginning with Heilbron v. Heilbron, 158 Pa. 297 , 27 A. 967 (1893) 7 which stand for the proposition that a divorce a m.e.t. awarding permanent alimony to the wife is a bar to any action for support on behalf of the wife____” Marra v. Marra, 189 Pa.Superior Ct. 180, 184, 149 A.2d 175, 177 (1969). 1983In so holding, we looked to a line of cases beginning with Heilbron v. Heilbron, 158 Pa. 297 , 27 A. 967 (1893) 7 which stand for the proposition that a divorce a m.e.t. awarding permanent alimony to the wife is a bar to any action for support on behalf of the wife____” Marra v. Marra, 189 Pa.Superior Ct. 180, 184, 149 A.2d 175, 177 (1969). | 3 | 1959–1983 |
Denaro v. Denaro
green
2 sentences2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. 2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Jordan v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. 2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Katherine Ryan v. Larry Janovsky
green
2 sentences2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. 2019See Dorko, supra; Johnston, supra; Ryan, supra; Denaro, supra; Jordan, supra. Accordingly, Wife’s claim that a domestic relations action is not a prerequisite to entry of a QDRO fails.4 Based upon the foregoing, we hold that absent a divorce or other domestic relations matter pending between spouses, they cannot obtain a QDRO for the sole purpose of moving funds in the participant/spouse’s ERISA plan out of the plan to the non-participating spouse. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Odiorne's Appeal
neutral
2 sentences1924She is not such a widow at his death as is contemplated by the statute: Odiorne’s Appeal, 54 Pa. 175 . 1900Nor can a wife claim, under the act, who has left her husband and renounced all conjugal intercourse for a considerable time before his death; she is not such a widow on his death as is contemplated by the statute: Odiorne’s Appeal, 54 Pa. 175 ; Nye’s Apppeal, 126 Pa. 341 , A wife who has by articles of separation agreed to live' separate and apart from her husband, and not at any time thereafter to claim any jointure, dower or third interest out of his estate, such articles being followed by an immediate and continued separation, cannot claim under the act: Dillinger’s Appeal, 35 Pa. 357 ; Sp | 2 | 1900–1924 |
Commonwealth v. Baldwin
green
1 sentence2025Commonwealth v. Baldwin, 8 A.3d 901 , 904 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2010). -6- J-S45017-24 Upon careful review, we discern no abuse of discretion or error of law in the trial court’s denial of Wife’s motion to vacate the Agreement. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Teodorski v. Teodorski
green
1 sentence2023"The purpose of an award of counsel fees is to promote fair administration of justice by enabling the dependent spouse to maintain or defend the divorce action without being placed at a financial disadvantage; the parties must be 'on par' with one another." Busse v. Busse, 921 A.2d 1248, 1258 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Teodorski, 857 A.2d at 201 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Conway, M. v. Conway, J. v. City of Erie Police
green
1 sentence2023Appellate courts “review a trial court’s decision to grant special relief in divorce actions under an abuse of discretion standard[.]” Conway v. Conway, 209 A.3d 367 , 371 (Pa.Super. 2019) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Bardine, B. v. Bardine, D.
green
2 sentences2022The intent of Section 3332 is “to codify the extraordinary circumstances which will outweigh the interests of the parties and the court in finality, and to delimit the time periods which within such circumstances must be established.” Bardine, 194 A.3d at 153 (citing Anderson v. Anderson, 544 A.2d 501, 505 (Pa. Super. 1988)). 2022The intent of Section 3332 is “to codify the extraordinary circumstances which will outweigh the interests of the parties and the court in finality, and to delimit the time periods which within such circumstances must be established.” Bardine, 194 A.3d at 153 (citing Anderson v. Anderson, 544 A.2d 501 , 505 (Pa. Super. 1988)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Rivera v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2021“As a general rule, an actual case or controversy must exist at all stages of the judicial process, or a case will be dismissed as moot.” Rivera v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 837 A.2d 525 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
GILMORE BY GILMORE v. Dondero
green
1 sentence2021Wife states she suffers from Addison’s, which “interferes with her physical and mental faculties.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Ferko-Fox v. Fox
green
1 sentence2021This being the case, we observe that “[c]redibility determinations are crucial components to any trial proceeding.” Ferko–Fox, 68 A.3d at 924 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| E.J. Ewing v. B.D. Potkul and PennDOT ~ Appeal of: PennDOT green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Walker, T. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Xinda Wang v. Zhiping Feng green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Goldstein v. Goldstein green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Halpin v. LaSalle University green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Berhalter v. Berhalter green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Purdy v. Purdy green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| McMullen v. Kutz green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Com. v. Williams green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Johnson v. Johnson green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Verholek v. Verholek green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Isralsky v. Isralsky green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Litmans v. Litmans green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Harris v. Toys\ R\" Us-Penn green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| United States v. Bajakajian green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Sneeringer v. Sneeringer green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| McFadden v. McFadden green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Focht v. Focht green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Annechino v. Joire green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Egan v. Egan green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Sabad v. Fessenden green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Eichman v. McKeon green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.