2001 Pa. Super. 199 - Mrozek v. James’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]n appellate court has the authority to determine whether the findings of the trial court support its legal conclusions, but may only interfere with those conclusions if they are unreasonable in light of the trial court's factual findings. This Court will not reverse or modify a final decree unless there has been an error of law or an abuse of discretion, or if the findings are not supported by the record, or there has been a capricious disbelief of the credible evidence. Furthermore [e]ach court is the exclusive judge of contempt against its process, and on appeal its actions will be reversed only when a plain abuse of discretion occurs.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 126 - Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorial · 2011 Pa. Super. 46 - Warmkessel v. Heffner

2. “Each court is the exclusive judge of contempts against its process. The contempt power is essential to the preservation of the court's authority and prevents the administration of justice from falling into disrepute.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. v. Thomas, J. · 2006 Pa. Super. 55 - Stahl v. Redcay

3. “Attorneys’ fees and other disbursements necessitated by the contemnor’s noncompliance may be recovered by the aggrieved party in a civil contempt case. Because an award of counsel fees is intended to reimburse an innocent litigant for expenses made necessary by the conduct of an opponent, it is coercive and compensatory, and not punitive. Counsel fees are a proper element of a civil contempt order. In reviewing a grant of attorney’s fees, we will not disturb the decision below absent a clear abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2003 Pa. Super. 224 - Wood v. Geisenhemer-Shaulis