Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 219 PASUPER 415 - Arcure v. Arcure

Arcure v. Arcure’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
February 2013
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably 317 Pa. Super. 282 - Kleinfelter v. Kleinfelter (1983), 241 Pa. Super. 53 - Schrock v. Schrock (1976)

29 state decisions

12019711980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 181 Pa. Super. 414 - Rankin v. Rankin · 202 Pa. Super. 529 - Fiorilli v. Fiorilli

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

  1. “To make out a charge of indignities, three elements must be proved: (1) a course of conduct that, although varying according to the circumstances of each case, must in every case (2) be inconsistent with the marital relationship, and (3) render the condition of the innocent party intolerable and his or her life burdensome--- Although no general rule can be formulated as to what constitutes indignities in a particular case, the matter being one that depends upon all the circumstances of the particular case and the position in life, character, and disposition of the parties ... our cases hold that proof of “vulgarities, unmerited reproach, habitual contumely, studied neglect, intentional incivility, manifest disdain, abusive language, or malignant ridicule” may be sufficient to make out a case for divorce based on indigni-ties____ Moreover, several of these factors “may coalesce to justify a finding of indignities, although taken separately, no single incident or factor would be sufficient.” ... Finally, it should be noted that in the present case, the burden of proving indignities was on the husband as the party seeking the divorce ... and that the husband was required to prove that he was an innocent and injured spouse....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.