331 Pa. Super. 1 - Semasek v. Semasek’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably 357 Pa. Super. 339 - Morschhauser v. Morschhauser (1986), 357 Pa. Super. 483 - Campbell v. Campbell (1986)
85 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 310 Pa. Super. 23 - Remick v. Remick · 316 Pa. Super. 282 - Ruth v. Ruth · 293 Pa. Super. 491 - Gordon v. Gordon · 309 Pa. Super. 16 - Platek v. Platek · 314 Pa. Super. 31 - Gee v. Gee
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We note that there is no simple formula by which to divide marital property. The method of distribution derives from the facts of the individual case. The list of factors of 401(d) serves as a guideline for consideration, although the list is neither exhaustive nor specific as to the weight to be given the various factors. Thus, the court has flexibility of method and concomitantly assumes responsibility in rendering its decisions.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) The length of the marriage. (2) Any prior marriage of either party. (3) The age, health, station, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties. (4) The contribution by one party to the education, training, or increased earning power of the other party. (5) The opportunity of each party for future acquisitions of capital assets and income. (6) The sources of income of both parties, including but not limited to medical, retirement, insurance or other benefits. (7) The contribution or dissipation of each party in the acquisition, preservation, depreciation or appreciation of the marital property, including the contribution of a party as homemaker. (8) The value of the property set apart to each party. (9) The standard of living of the parties established during the marriage. (10) The economic circumstances of each party at the time the division of property is to become effective.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining the propriety of property distribution and of alimony, we use the abuse of discretion standard of review. Ruth v. Ruth, 316 Pa.Super. 282 , 462 A.2d 1351 (1983); Remick v. Remick, 310 Pa.Super. 23 , 456 A.2d 163 (1983). Under this standard, we do not usurp the hearing court’s duty as fact finder. Rather we apply the legislative guidelines of the Divorce Code to the record to determine whether or not the hearing court has abused its discretion.”
2 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.