Spence v. Spence’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In this conflict of testimony the lower court accepted the testimony of the libellant, corroborated in some, but not in all respects, by that of his brother. Where in a divorce proceeding, as here, credibility is the issue, the conclusion of the hearing judge, as to which of the parties is to be believed, is entitled to respect. Ussler v. Ussler, 158 Pa.Super. 215 , 44 A.2d 526 ; Weber v. Weber, 156 Pa.Super. 6 , 39 A.2d 144 . In referring to the principle Mr. Justice Linn, in Wick v. Wick, 352 Pa. 25 , 42 A.2d 76 , said: “Presumably, a trial judge’s opportunity to observe the parties and witnesses during the trial, became the basis of a rule that ‘when witnesses who are competent and equally interested, flatly contradict each other, the conclusion of the judge who heard them, as to which is to be believed, is not to be lightly disturbed.’ Krug v. Krug, 22 Pa.Super. 572, 573 ; Koontz v. Koontz, 97 Pa.Super. 70 ; Dearth v. Dearth, 141 Pa.Super. 344 , 15 A.2d 37 . In accord with that rule, we have at times resolved doubt in dealing with conflicting testimony, by relying on expressed or implied conclusions of the trial judge.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 246 Pa. Super. 231 - Coxe v. Coxe