2000 Pa. Super. 78 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Bower v. Bower · 316 Pa. Super. 282 - Ruth v. Ruth · 293 Pa. Super. 491 - Gordon v. Gordon · 409 Pa. Super. 355 - Berrington v. Berrington · 359 Pa. Super. 344 - Major v. Major
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ACCEPTING THE MASTER’S VALUATION OF HUSBAND’S RETIREMENT BENEFITS WITH THE STATE EMPLOYES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM? II. WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ACCEPTING THE MASTER’S RECOMMENDATION OF DISTRIBUTING HUSBAND’S RETIREMENT BENEFITS BY THE IMMEDIATE OFFSET METHOD RATHER THAN USING A FORMULA TO DISTRIBUTE THEM BY THE DEFERRED DISTRIBUTION METHOD? III.WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADOPTING THE MASTER’S SCHEME OF DISTRIBUTION OF MARITAL PROPERTY WHEN THE SAME WAS BASED ON ERRORS OF LAW AND FACT?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Our scope of review in equitable distribution matters is limited. Awards of alimony, counsel fees, and property distribution are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an error of law or abuse of discretion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cook, R. v. Cook, D.
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.