275 Pa. Super. 573 - Keller v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 310 Pa. Super. 23 - Remick v. Remick (1983), 426 Pa. Super. 245 - Perlberger v. Perlberger (1993)
27 state decisions
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 General Electric Credit Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · Nacrelli v. Nacrelli · Heilbron v. Heilbron · Steinke v. Steinke · 253 Pa. Super. 538 - Jack v. Jack
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On an appeal from a divorce decree, we are obliged to make an independent review of the record. Barr v. Barr, 232 Pa.Super. 9 , 331 A.2d 774 (1974); Nacrelli v. Nacrelli, 288 Pa. 1 , 136 A. 228 (1927). However, “[a] report of a master who has had the advantage of seeing and hearing the parties and their witnesses, is, nevertheless, to be given fullest consideration.” Vautier v. Vautier, 138 Pa. Super. 366, 367 , 11 A.2d 207, 208 (1939). See also Lyons v. Lyons, 116 Pa.Super. 385 , 176 A. 792 (1935). 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. Steinke v. Steinke, 238 Pa.Super. 74, 85 , 357 A.2d 674, 680-81 (1976) (SPAETH, J., concurring) (collecting cases). 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, Margolis v. Margolis, 201 Pa.Super. 129, 133 , 192 A.2d 228, 230 (1963), 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 divo”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.