160 Pa. Super. 438 - Commonwealth v. Berfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Notwithstanding any other law of the United States, or of any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia,, no annuity or pension payment shall be assignable or be subject to any tax or to garnishment, attachment, or other legal process under any circumstances whatsoever, nor shall the payment thereof be anticipated.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Allen v. Allen · 457 F. Supp. 1146 - Cartledge v. Miller

2. “The obligation of a husband to support his wife does not arise in contract and is not a debt; the husband’s liability is imposed by law as an incident of the marital status. And because of the obligation arising from that status and the legal unity of husband and wife, our appellate courts have held that a wife may look to a fund payable to her husband, however safeguarded by law or by the language of its creation, from attachment by others. Moorehead’s Estate, 289 Pa, 542, 552, 137 A. 802 , 52 A.L.R. 1251 ; Com. ex rel. v. Peterson, 100 Pa.Super. 600 . The legal unity existing between husband and wife make them one so far as support is concerned. Decker v. Poor Directors, 120 Pa. 272 , 13 A. 925 . Thus, it has been consistently held that a wife may look for support to a spendthrift trust, though created for the sole benefit of her husband. Moorehead’s Estate, supra; Stewart’s Estate, 334 Pa. 356 , 5 A.2d 910 ; Lippincott et a1. v. Lippincott et al., 349 Pa. 501 , 37 A.2d 741 . So also, an order against a husband for support can be enforced out of workmen’s compensation payments notwithstanding the provision of § 318 of the Act of June 2,1915, P.L. 736, reenacted June 21,1939, P.L. 520, 77 P.S. 621, exempting such payments from levy, execution and attachment. Com. ex rel. v. Peterson, supra. On the same principle, in spite of statutory exemption from attachment (Act of April 15, 1845, P.L. 459, § 5, 42 P.S. 886) a wife may enforce the payment of her support out of wages due h”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 305 Pa. Super. 328 - Schmitz v. Schmitz · 260 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Smith v. Smith

3. ““Thus, it has been consistently held that a wife may look for support to a spendthrift trust, though created for the sole benefit of her husband [citations omitted]. So also, an order against a husband for support can be enforced out of workmen’s compensation payments notwithstanding the provision ... exempting such payments from levy, execution and attachment. On the same principle, in spite of statutory exemption from attachment ... a wife may enforce the payment of her support out of wages due her husband in the hands of his employer [citation omitted]. The above authorities however go no farther than to say that in specific circumstances a wife is not barred from looking to a fund for her support which is exempt from attachment as to others. But certainly Congress .... has the power to immunize a fund from every attachment, including process on behalf of a wife for the collection of a support order. The Railroad Retirement Act is such legislation and must be so construed .... The provision of the act exempting the fund from attachment was not in aid of delinquent husbands seeking to evade their responsibilities but was intended solely to relieve the Federal authorities as administrators of the fund from the annoyance of attachment of pensions or annuities in their hands, payable to railroad employees after retirement.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 239 Pa. Super. 111 - Pension Fund of the City of Pittsburgh Appeal