2004 Pa. Super. 413 - Baker v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In determining the value of marital property, the court is free to accept all, part or none of the evidence as to the true and correct value of the property. Litmans v. Litmans, 449 Pa.Super. 209 , 673 A.2d 382, 395 (Pa.Super.1996) (citing Aletto v. Aletto, 371 Pa.Super. 230 , 537 A.2d 1383 (Pa.Super.1988)). “Where the evidence offered by one party is uncon-tradicted, the court may adopt this value even though the resulting valuation would have been different if more accurate and complete evidence had been presented.” Id. (quoting Holland v. Holland, 403 Pa.Super. 116 , 588 A.2d 58, 60 (Pa.Super.1991), appeal denied, 528 Pa. 611 , 596 A.2d 158 (1991). Accord Smith v. Smith, 439 Pa.Super. 283 , 653 A.2d 1259, 1267 (Pa.Super.1995), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 641 , 663 A.2d 693 (1995) (stating if one party disagrees with the other party’s valuation, it is his burden to provide the court with an altémative valuation). A trial court does not abuse its discretion in adopting the only valuation submitted by the parties. Litmans, supra at 395 . Absent a specific guideline in the divorce code, the trial courts are given discretion to choose the date of valuation of marital property which best provides for “economic justice” between parties. Smith, supra at 1270 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schenk v. Schenk · 2006 Pa. Super. 175 - Smith v. Smith