249 Pa. Super. 78 - Ryave v. Ryave’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The law is clear that when a divorce matter is heard by a judge sitting without a jury, this Court must make a complete and independent review of the record of the proceedings below. Eifert v. Eifert, 219 Pa.Super. 373 , 281 A.2d 657 (1971). The Court’s review extends even to matters of credibility. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 169 Pa.Super. 617 , 84 A.2d 261 (1951). The Court must “examin[e] the record to discover inherent improbabilities in the stories of the witnesses, inconsistencies and contradictions, bias and interest, opposition to incontrovertible physical facts, patent falsehoods . . . 12 P.L.E. § 143 Divorce; see also, Faszczewski v. Faszczewski, 182 Pa.Super. 295 , 126 A.2d 773 (1956); Rankin v. Rankin, 181 Pa.Super. 414 , 124 A.2d 639 (1956).’ Ryave v. Ryave, 249 Pa.Super. 78, 85 , 375 A.2d 766, 770 (1977); Barton v. Barton, 248 Pa.Super. 278 , 375 A.2d 96 (1977); Shacreaw v. Shacreaw, 248 Pa.Super. 223 , 375 A.2d 68 (1977). However, we have frequently stated: ‘while the findings and recommendation of the master are only adviso ry, where the issue is one of credibility and the master is the one who heard and observed the witnesses, his findings should be given the fullest consideration. Schrock v. Schrock, 241 Pa.Super. 53 , 359 A.2d 435 (1976); Gehris v. Gehris, 233 Pa.Super. 144 , 334 A.2d 753 (1975).’ DeBias v. DeBias, 245 Pa.Super. 266, 272 , 369 A.2d 396, 399 (1976). Section 10(f) of the Pennsylvania Divorce Law, supra, provides inter alia that: ‘. . . [I]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 Pa. Super. 102 - Leucci v. Leucci

2. ““The law is clear that when a divorce matter is heard by a judge sitting without a jury, this Court must make a complete and independent review of the record of the proceedings below. Eifert v. Eifert, 219 Pa.Super. 373 , 281 A.2d 657 (1971). The Court’s review extends even to matters of credibility. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 169 Pa.Super. 617 , 84 A.2d 261 (1951). The Court must ‘examin[e] the record to discover inherent improbabilities in the stories of the witnesses, inconsistencies and contradictions, bias and interest, opposition to incontrovertible physical facts, patent falsehoods . . ..’ 12 P.L.E. § 143 Divorce; see also, Faszczewski v. Faszczewski, 182 Pa.Super. 295 , 126 A.2d 773 (1956); Rankin v. Rankin, 181 Pa.Super. 414 , 124 A.2d 639 (1956).” Ryave v. Ryave, 249 Pa.Super. 78, 85 , 375 A.2d 766, 770 (1977); Barton v. Barton, 248 Pa.Super. 278 , 375 A.2d 96 (1977); Shacreaw v. Shacreaw, 248 Pa.Super. 223 , 375 A.2d 68 (1977). However, we have frequently stated: “while the findings and recommendation of the master are only advisory, where the issue is one of credibility and the master is the one who heard and observed the witnesses, his findings should be given the fullest consideration. Schrock v. Schrock, 241 Pa.Super. 53 , 359 A.2d 435 (1976); Gehris v. Gehris, 233 Pa.Super. 144 , 334 A.2d 753 (1975).” DeBias v. DeBias, 245 Pa.Super. 266, 272 , 369 A.2d 396, 399 (1976).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 Pa. Super. 275 - Moorhead v. Moorhead

3. “For example, if the ultimate decision rests on a statement asserted by one party and denied by the other, where there is no corroborative evidence, demeanor on the stand is necessarily dispositive of the issue and is the kind of evidence that cannot effectively be reviewed by an appellate court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 278 Pa. Super. 275 - Moorhead v. Moorhead