289 Pa. Super. 405 - Litwack v. Litwack’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 417 Pa. Super. 592 - McMahon v. McMahon (1992), 425 Pa. Super. 204 - Krizovensky v. Krizovensky (1993)
70 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 Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White · East Crossroads Center, Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co. · Hagarty v. Wm. Akers, Jr., Co., Inc. · Commonwealth v. Crenshaw · 242 Pa. Super. 435 - Kohn v. Kohn
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No assertion of fraud or mistake attendant upon the execution of the separation agreement is made. So long as a separation agreement stands unimpeached, the court cannot alter or change a provision for separate maintenance and support of the wife without the consent of both parties . . . [A]bsent such impeachment, there is no authority for the court to cancel a contract made by the parties and in its place substitute one which it thinks proper but which as a matter of fact the parties had never assented to."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In construing a separation agreement a court must adopt that construction which gives effect to the parties’ reasonable and probable intent, in view of the surrounding circumstances and purposes of the contract. Kohn v. Kohn, 242 Pa. Super. 435, 442 , 364 A.2d 350, 353 (1976). See also: Wiegand v. Wiegand, 349 Pa. 517 , 37 A.2d 492 (1944). In a written contract the intent of the parties is the writing itself, and when the words are clear and unambiguous the intent is to be determined only from the express language of the agreement. R. F. Felte Inc. v. White, 451 Pa. 137, 143 , 302 A.2d 347, 351 (1973); East Crossroads Center Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co., 416 Pa. 229 , 205 A.2d 865 (1965); Redevelopment Authority of the City of Johnstown v. Tross, 20 Pa. Commw. 103 , 340 A.2d 652 (1975). When the terms of a written contract are clear, this court will not rewrite it or give it a construction in conflict with the accepted and plain meaning of the language used. Estate of Breyer, 475 Pa. 108, 115 , 379 A.2d 1305, 1309 (1977); R.F. Felte Inc. v. White, supra, 451 Pa. at 144 , 302 A.2d at 351 ; East Crossroads Center Inc. v. Mellon-Stuart Co., supra; Hagarty v. William Akers, Jr. Co. Inc., 342 Pa. 236 , 20 A.2d 317 (1941).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Reighard v. Reighard“So long as a separation agreement stands unimpeached, the court cannot alter or change a provision for separate maintenance and support of the wife without the consent of both parties ... Absent such impeachment, there is no authority for the court to cancel a contract made by the parties and in its place substitute one which it thinks proper but which as a matter of fact the parties had never assented to.”
1 later decision 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.