60 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1993–2025 15 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teodorski v. Teodorskigreen2 sentences2023We previously have explained that “[t]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” Alimony “is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay.” Moreover, “[a]limony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be 2022We previously have explained that “[t]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” Alimony “is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” Moreover, “[a]limony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be | 16 | 19 |
Balicki v. Balickigreen2 sentences2018"Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay." Balicki v. Balicki , 4 A.3d 654 , 659 (Pa. Super. 2010). 2017“Alimony is based upon reasonable -7- J-S37003-17 needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” Balicki v. Balicki, 4 A.3d 654, 659 (Pa. Super. 2010) (quoting Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 7 | 9 |
Isralsky v. Isralskygreen2 sentences2023See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). - 10 - J-S44011-22 factors); Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1188 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). 2023See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii); Pa.R.A.P. 2119(a). - 10 - J-S44011-22 factors); Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178 , 1188 (Pa. Super. 2003) (“Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). | 6 | 15 |
Perlberger v. Perlbergergreen2 sentences2013“Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” Perlberger v. Perlberger, 626 A.2d 1186, 1203 (Pa. Super. 1993). “[A]limony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable, needs of the parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an appropriate employable skill.” Teodorski v. Teodorski, 857 A.2d 194, 200 (Pa. Super. 2004)(emphasis in original). 2006“The purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” Twilla v. Twilla, 445 Pa. Super. 86, 90 , 664 A.2d 1020, 1022 (1995). (quotation omitted) In determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those statutorily prescribed for at 23 Pa.C.S. §3701, alimony, (b) relevant factors (1)-(17). “ ‘Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance wit | 6 | 7 |
Moran v. Morangreen2 sentences2023We previously have explained that “[t]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” Alimony “is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay.” Moreover, “[a]limony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be 2021We previously have explained that “[t]he purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.” Alimony “is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” Moreover, “[a]limony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be | 4 | 9 |
Twilla v. Twillagreen2 sentences2017An award of alimony should reflect the “reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.’”4 Id. (quoting Twilla v. Twilla, 664 A.2d 1020 , 1022 ____________________________________________ 4 Section 3701(b) of the Divorce Code sets forth the relevant factors in an alimony determination: In determining whether alimony is necessary and in determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 14 - J-A15005-17 _______________________ (Footnote Continued) 2008Twilla v. Twilla, 445 Pa. Super. 86, 90 , 664 A.2d 1020, 1023 (1995) (citing Nemoto, 423 Pa. Super, at 275-76, 620 A.2d at 1219 ). (12) Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay. | 3 | 8 |
Cook, R. v. Cook, D.green2 sentences2025Cook, 186 A.3d at 1019–20 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2025Cook v. Cook, 186 A.3d 1015 , 1019–20 (Pa.Super. 2018) (citations, quotation marks, and quotations omitted). | 3 | 6 |
Kent v. Kentgreen2 sentences2021Cook, 186 A.3d at 1019 -1020 (quoting Kent v. Kent, 16 A.3d 1158, 1161 (Pa. Super. 2011)) (further citation omitted). 2015Husband’s focus on establishing that the trial court erred in its mathematical computation of his net monthly income is misplaced however, as this Court has established that alimony is based upon “the payor’s ability to pay.” See Kent v. Kent, 16 A.3d 1158, 1161 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.”) (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Miller v. Millergreen2 sentences2018"The purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support herself through appropriate employment are met." Miller v. Miller , 744 A.2d 778 , 788 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citation omitted). *1020 "Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor's ability to pay." Teodorski , [ supra ] at 200 (citation omitted). 2010“The purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support herself through appropriate employment are met.” Miller v. Miller, 744 A.2d 778, 788 (Pa.Super.1999) (citation omitted). ¶ 8 “Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.” Teodorski, 857 A.2d at 200 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Dalrymple v. Kilishekgreen2 sentences2015Dalrymple, 920 A.2d at 1278–1279 (citing Isralsky, 824 A.2d at 1188 ). 2015Dalrymple v. Kilishek, 920 A.2d 1275, 1278-79 (Pa. Super. 2007) (internal citations and quotations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Plitka v. Plitkagreen2 sentences2006The Divorce Code dictates that “[i]n determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those statutorily prescribed for at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701, Alimony, (b) Relevant Factors (1)-(17).” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1188 (Pa.Super.2003) (quoting Plitka v. Plitka, 714 A.2d 1067, 1069 (Pa.Super.1998)). ¶ .11 Wife’s first contention is meritless as the trial court did not find any credible evidence to support her allegations concerning the diversion of income from Husband’s business to his paramour’s business. 2003Plitka v. Plitka, 714 A.2d 1067, 1069 (Pa.Super.1998). | 1 | 2 |
McFadden v. McFaddengreen1 sentence2017It should be noted that “case law clearly establishes that retirement can serve as the basis for the changed circumstances of a substantial and continuing nature necessary to modify an alimony award.” Commonwealth v. McFadden, 563 A.2d 180, 183 (Pa. Super. 1989) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Gates v. Gatesgreen1 sentence2015We previously have explained that ‘the purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met.’ Alimony ‘is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay.’ Moreover, ‘alimony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be ach | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nemoto v. Nemoto
green
2 sentences2015“The Divorce Code dictates that in determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those statutorily prescribed for at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701, Alimony, (b) Relevant Factors (1)-(17).” Smith, supra (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he totality of the assets and income actually available to the dependent spouse must be fairly evaluated, regardless of the source from which they derive.” Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216 , 1221 n. 6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (citation omitted). 2008Twilla v. Twilla, 445 Pa. Super. 86, 90 , 664 A.2d 1020, 1023 (1995) (citing Nemoto, 423 Pa. Super, at 275-76, 620 A.2d at 1219 ). (12) Alimony is based upon reasonable needs in accordance with the lifestyle and standard of living established by the parties during the marriage, as well as the payor’s ability to pay. | 2 | 2008–2015 |
Crocker-Fasulo, S. v. Fasulo, G.
green
1 sentence2024Moreover, alimony following a divorce is a secondary remedy and is available only where economic justice and the reasonable needs of the parties cannot be achieved by way of an equitable distribution award and development of an appropriate employable skill. -7- J-S32028-24 Crocker-Fasulo, 292 A.3d at 596 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2015“The Divorce Code dictates that in determining the nature, amount, duration and manner of payment of alimony, the court must consider all relevant factors, including those statutorily prescribed for at 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701, Alimony, (b) Relevant Factors (1)-(17).” Smith, supra (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he totality of the assets and income actually available to the dependent spouse must be fairly evaluated, regardless of the source from which they derive.” Nemoto v. Nemoto, 620 A.2d 1216 , 1221 n. 6 (Pa. Super. 1993) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barrett v. Barrett
green
2 sentences2007Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1188 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 7 Dalrymple relies upon Barrett v. Barrett, 418 Pa.Super. 334 , 614 A.2d 299 (1992). 2007Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1188 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶ 7 Dalrymple relies upon Barrett v. Barrett, 418 Pa.Super. 334 , 614 A.2d 299 (1992). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Zullo v. Zullo
green
2 sentences1995“Necessity is the only requirement in determining the propriety of an alimony award and that necessity is judged by numerous considerations only some of which have to do with the rehabilitation of the recipient spouse.” Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa.Super. 113 , 122 n. 3, 576 A.2d 1070 , 1074 n. 3 (1990), affirmed, 531 Pa. 377 , 613 A.2d 544 (1992). 1995“Necessity is the only requirement in determining the propriety of an alimony award and that necessity is judged by numerous considerations only some of which have to do with the rehabilitation of the recipient spouse.” Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa.Super. 113 , 122 n. 3, 576 A.2d 1070 , 1074 n. 3 (1990), affirmed, 531 Pa. 377 , 613 A.2d 544 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Zullo v. Zullo
green
2 sentences1995“Necessity is the only requirement in determining the propriety of an alimony award and that necessity is judged by numerous considerations only some of which have to do with the rehabilitation of the recipient spouse.” Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa.Super. 113 , 122 n. 3, 576 A.2d 1070 , 1074 n. 3 (1990), affirmed, 531 Pa. 377 , 613 A.2d 544 (1992). 1995“Necessity is the only requirement in determining the propriety of an alimony award and that necessity is judged by numerous considerations only some of which have to do with the rehabilitation of the recipient spouse.” Zullo v. Zullo, 395 Pa.Super. 113 , 122 n. 3, 576 A.2d 1070 , 1074 n. 3 (1990), affirmed, 531 Pa. 377 , 613 A.2d 544 (1992). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dyer v. Dyer
green
2 sentences1993McCabe v. McCabe, 374 Pa.Super. 451 , 543 A.2d 558 (1988); Dyer v. Dyer, 370 Pa.Super. 377 , 536 A.2d 453 (1988). 1993McCabe v. McCabe, 374 Pa.Super. 451 , 543 A.2d 558 (1988); Dyer v. Dyer, 370 Pa.Super. 377 , 536 A.2d 453 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
McCabe v. McCabe
green
2 sentences1993McCabe v. McCabe, 374 Pa.Super. 451 , 543 A.2d 558 (1988); Dyer v. Dyer, 370 Pa.Super. 377 , 536 A.2d 453 (1988). 1993McCabe v. McCabe, 374 Pa.Super. 451 , 543 A.2d 558 (1988); Dyer v. Dyer, 370 Pa.Super. 377 , 536 A.2d 453 (1988). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.