Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1936–1979 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Decker v. Deckergreen2 sentences1979Decker v. Decker, 204 Pa.Super. 156, 163 , 203 A.2d 343, 346 (1964). 1979Decker v. Decker, 204 Pa.Super. 156, 163 , 203 A.2d 343, 346 (1964). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. v. Sherrittgreen1 sentence1942Fort v. Fort, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 151, 152 , 188 A. 416 ; Com. ex rel Martocello v. Martocello, supra,) and that “it is not the prerogative of the court to divide his estate.” Com. ex rel. v. Sherritt, 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 303, 304 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth ex rel. Gutzeit v. Gutzeit
green
2 sentences1978Thus, in Gutzeit, supra, our Court noted the “hopelessness of applying the one-third rule to an order directing the payment of the wife’s medical bills.” 200 Pa.Super. at 410 , 189 A.2d at 329 . 1978Thus, in Gutzeit, supra, our Court noted the “hopelessness of applying the one-third rule to an order directing the payment of the wife’s medical bills.” 200 Pa.Super. at 410 , 189 A.2d at 329 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Commonwealth ex rel. McNulty v. McNulty
green
2 sentences1978McNulty v. McNulty, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 247 , 311 A. 2d 701 (1973). 1978McNulty v. McNulty, 226 Pa. Superior Ct. 247 , 311 A. 2d 701 (1973). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Commonwealth, ex rel. Taylor v. Taylor
neutral
2 sentences1972Taylor v. Taylor, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 519, 523 , 165 A. 2d 394 (1960). 1972Taylor v. Taylor, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 519, 523 , 165 A. 2d 394 (1960). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fort v. Fort
green
2 sentences1942Fort v. Fort, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 151, 152 , 188 A. 416 ; Com. ex rel Martocello v. Martocello, supra,) and that “it is not the prerogative of the court to divide his estate.” Com. ex rel. v. Sherritt, 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 303, 304 . 1942Fort v. Fort, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 151, 152 , 188 A. 416 ; Com. ex rel Martocello v. Martocello, supra,) and that “it is not the prerogative of the court to divide his estate.” Com. ex rel. v. Sherritt, 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 303, 304 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Martocello v. Martocello
neutral
2 sentences1942Martocello v. Martocello, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 40, 46 , 24 A. (2d) 712), we have tried to make it clear that this one-third rule is to be used to determine the ceiling or maximum amount which will be lawful; it was never intended as a measure of what will furnish “comfortable support and maintenance of the said wife.” 1 We have said that an order for support “is not to punish the respondent for his conduct, or misconduct, towards his wife and family” (Com. ex rel. 1942Fort v. Fort, 124 Pa. Superior Ct. 151, 152 , 188 A. 416 ; Com. ex rel Martocello v. Martocello, supra,) and that “it is not the prerogative of the court to divide his estate.” Com. ex rel. v. Sherritt, 83 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 303, 304 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
Dennison's Appeal
neutral
1 sentence1936In Dennison’s Appeal, 1 Pa. 201 , where the one third rule was adopted in estimating the value of the life estate, the court said, “We see no objection to adopting this rule in the present case .. ....” In Shippen’s and Robbin’s Appeal, 80 Pa. 391 , it was held that the Carlisle Tables are not authoritative in a judicial investigation of the value of a life estate; in such investigation each case must depend on its own circumstances, and the court further said, “We are, therefore, disposed to take the old common-law rule of one-third of the whole sum, as the present value of the accumulated in | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Shippen's Appeal
neutral
1 sentence1936In Dennison’s Appeal, 1 Pa. 201 , where the one third rule was adopted in estimating the value of the life estate, the court said, “We see no objection to adopting this rule in the present case .. ....” In Shippen’s and Robbin’s Appeal, 80 Pa. 391 , it was held that the Carlisle Tables are not authoritative in a judicial investigation of the value of a life estate; in such investigation each case must depend on its own circumstances, and the court further said, “We are, therefore, disposed to take the old common-law rule of one-third of the whole sum, as the present value of the accumulated in | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Dunkel v. Datesman
green
2 sentences1936Platt.” *590 It was stated in Datesman’s Appeal, 127 Pa. 348, 359 , 17 A. 1086 : “There were two modes of disposing of the fund, either of which would be allowable. 1936Platt.” *590 It was stated in Datesman’s Appeal, 127 Pa. 348, 359 , 17 A. 1086 : “There were two modes of disposing of the fund, either of which would be allowable. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.