165 Pa. Super. 379 - Allen v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “I concur in the result reached in the majority opinion as the evidence was insufficient to sustain libellant's charge of indignities to the person, which was the single charge in the libel. But I do not agree that the testimony of libellant that he found respondent in bed with another man on the night of November 15, 1930, was inadmissible. In Hexamer v. Hexamer, 42 Pa. Superior Ct. 226 , a divorce on the grounds of cruelty and indignities was refused, although the respondent was guilty of flagrant and shocking misbehavior constituting a long course of conduct. This Court has consistently held, in subsequent decisions, that a wife's affair with another man, in itself, may constitute an indignity, and that conduct by a husband with respect to other women, although not sufficient to support a charge of adultery, may be considered as a form of personal indignity to the wife rendering her condition intolerable and life burdensome. Blansett v. Blansett, 162 Pa. Superior Ct. 45 , 56 A. 2d 341 ; Macormac v. Macormac, 159 Pa. Superior Ct. 378 , 48 A. 2d 136 ; Smith v. Smith, 157 Pa. Superior Ct. 582 , 43 A. 2d 371 ; Lowe v. Lowe, 148 Pa. Superior Ct. 439 , 25 A. 2d 781 ; Dearth v. Dearth, 141 Pa. Superior Ct. 344 , 15 A. 2d 37 . See, also, Wick v. Wick, 352 Pa. 25 , 42 A. 2d 76 ; McKrell v. McKrell, 352 Pa. 173 , 42 A. 2d 609 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phipps v. Phipps

2. “Adultery in fact is an indignity in its gravest form. But the legislature wisely has seen fit to make adultery a separate and distinct cause of divorce and has prescribed a procedure appropriate to the seriousness of the charge. One of the purposes of section 9 of the Act of March 13, 1815, P.L. 150, 48 PS § 169, is to prevent one, guilty of adultery, from marrying his paramour. The prohibition of that Act is not rhetoric merely; it imposes a personal incapacity on a respondent to marry the person with whom the adultery was committed. Maurer v. Maurer, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 264 , 60 A. 2d 440 . Moreover, § 38 of the Act of May 2, 1929, P.L. 1237, as amended, 23 PS § 38, requires that such paramour be named in the libel and, as corespondent, be given notice of the charge so that the aspersion may be disproven if false. The mandates of the divorce law as to the acts, which are evidence of adultery, cannot be avoided by treating them as incidents merely of a course of conduct justifying a decree of divorce on the charge of indignities alone.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phipps v. Phipps

3. “was not admissible on the charge of indignities and should have been disregarded even though in evidence without objection.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Phipps v. Phipps