Hohlstein v. Hohlstein’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The amendment to Rule 1920.2 addresses the bases of venue in actions for divorce or annulment of marriage. Under prior practice, an action was re quired to be brought in a county in which the plaintiff or the defendant resided. However, caselaw allowed this provision to be waived by a failure to object when an action was brought in a county where neither party resided. A problem arose in that an action could be brought in a forum which later became inconvenient when a defendant spouse decided to assert economic claims allowed by the Divorce Code. Under that practice, it was possible for the plaintiffs choice of forum to impose burdens and expenses upon an impecunious defendant and impair the defendant’s ability to assert claims and obtain the economic justice envisioned by the Divorce Code. The amended rule recognizes the concept of choice of venue since a forum other than a county of residence may be most agreeable to both parties. However, the choice of forum should not be unilateral to the detriment of the defendant. Consequently, new subdivision (a)(2) requires that, in order to bring the action in a forum other than as provided by subdivision (a)(1), the parties both must consent either by a writing attached to the complaint or by participation in the proceedings.... The master, if one has been appointed, and the court should make certain that the record demonstrates compliance with the choice of venue provided by subdivision (a)(1) or that there has been proper consent ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2008 Pa. Super. 70 - Danz v. Danz

2. ““The instant case, therefore, poses the question: (1) absent an express waiver of venue, at what point does either the action or inaction of defendant result in waiver and of improper venue; and (2) may the Court refuse to accept such waiver and dismiss a cause of action for reason of improper venue. “Appellant contends that a waiver took place in two ways. First, it is contended that by entering an appearance appellee waived all defenses and objections. While the filing [of] a form denominated an ‘appearance’ does give the other party notice of legal representation, it does not constitute, in and of itself, the kind of ‘general appearance’ which is a waiver of the right to raise defenses or objections to a plaintiff’s complaint. Notwithstanding the promulgation of Pa. R. C. P. 1012, a waiver will still be held to have occurred where the Court finds that a defendant has performed some act which unconditionally accepts the jurisdiction of the court for all purposes. Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 417 Pa. 135 , 208 A.2d 252 (1965). “We come then to appellant’s second contention, i.e., that appellee entered a general appearance by failing to respond in a timely fashion to plaintiffs complaint, thereby waiving his right to object to the venue of the proceedings. With this contention, we must agree. “Although it is clear that appellee’s entry of appearance did not constitute a ‘general appearance’ so as to waive all defenses, it is likewise evident that by failing to raise the defe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Esposito v. Esposito

3. ““Although it is clear that appellee’s entry of appearance did not constitute a 'general appearance’ so as to waive all defenses, it is likewise evident that by failing to raise the defense by way of preliminary objection and by failing to contest in any form whatsoever the proceedings before the Master, appellee acted by way of a general appearance thereby waiving his right to raise improper venue.” 296 A. 2d 888 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 38 Md. App. 360 - Lovering v. Lovering