2001 Pa. Super. 368 - Colonna v. Colonna’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 667 (§ 467 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Melzer v. Witsberger · Commonwealth v. Craver · Banks Engineering Co., Inc. v. Polons · Commonwealth v. Johnson · In re M.L.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he support guidelines are the Legislature’s response to the Federal Government’s mandate that States establish mandatory guidelines for determining child support. See Introduction to the 1998 Explanatory Comment, Pa.R.C.P., Rule 1910.16-1, 42 Pa.C.S.A.; 42 U.S.C. § 667 (a). This statute replaced a discretionary system and was enacted to create greater uniformity, predictability and equity in determining child support awards, while at the same time maintaining a degree of judicial discretion necessary to address unique circumstances. See Explanatory Comment-1998 to Rule 1910.16-1 (stating purpose of guidelines is to promote “(1) similar treatment of persons similarly situated, (2) a more equitable distribution of the financial responsibility for raising children, (3) settlement of support matters without court involvement, and (4) more efficient hearings where they are necessary.”)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“An abuse of discretion occurs if insufficient evidence exists to sustain a support award, if the trial court overrides or misapplies existing law, or if the judgment exercised by the trial court is manifestly unreasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“material and substantial change in circumstances”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Yerkes v. Yerkes
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.