Pa. Cons. Stat. » 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. (DOMESTIC RELATIONS) / Chapter 73
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7303 (2026)

 Application of law of this State.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 7303.  Application of law of this State.

Except as otherwise provided by this part, a responding tribunal of this State:

(1)  shall apply the procedural and substantive law, including the rules on choice of law, generally applicable to similar proceedings originating in this State and may exercise all powers and provide all remedies available in those proceedings; and

(2)  shall determine the duty of support and the amount payable in accordance with the law and support guidelines of this State.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2001–2002 · leading case: DiPaolo v. Cugini, 811 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
DiPaolo v. Cugini, 811 A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “[4] The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 7303, Application of law of this State, reads: Except as otherwise provided by this part, a responding tribunal of this State: (1) shall apply the procedural and substantive law, including the rules on choice of law,…”
Thompson v. Santiago, 57 Pa. D. & C.4th 170 (2001). “Since our focus shifts to the Pennsylvania action, we must decide whether Pennsylvania or North Carolina procedure applies to the jurisdictional attack mounted here. The Pennsylvania UIFS A instructs we must apply the procedural and substantive law, in- *189 eluding the rales on…”
— 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7303(1) — 1 case
Thompson v. Santiago, 57 Pa. D. & C.4th 170 (2001). “Since our focus shifts to the Pennsylvania action, we must decide whether Pennsylvania or North Carolina procedure applies to the jurisdictional attack mounted here. The Pennsylvania UIFS A instructs we must apply the procedural and substantive law, in- *189 eluding the rales on…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.