335 Pa. Super. 258 - De Witt v. Kaiser’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2001 · most notably Hullett v. Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby, Inc. (1994), 351 Pa. Super. 205 - Trumpp v. Trumpp (1985)
2 federal appellate · 24 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 289 Pa. Super. 405 - Litwack v. Litwack · 242 Pa. Super. 435 - Kohn v. Kohn · 291 Pa. Super. 491 - Kleintop v. Kleintop · Castellucci v. Columbia Gas of Pennsylvania, Inc. · Commonwealth ex rel. Grossman v. Grossman
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The court noted: Where a term is defined in a contract and is, therefore, presumably unambiguous, no further interpretation is justified since if the meaning is clear from the express language of the agreement, judicial construction is unnecessary. Eannarino v. Eannarino, 294 Pa.Super. 81 , 439 A.2d 760 (1982).... We are convinced that in this case “While [appellant] cannot use parol evidence to add terms to the original description, such evidence is admissible to clarify the terms of the description so that the Court can act upon it.” Powell v. Powell, 244 Pa.Super. 264, 272 , 367 A.2d 314, 318 (1976). In Kohn v. Kohn, 242 Pa.Super. 435 , 364 A.2d 350 (1976), the issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in refusing to receive evidence that the parties used the term “alimony” to mean “child support”, or simply, what was the meaning that the parties intended when they used the word “alimony”. “In general the court must adopt the construction which gives effect to the parties’ reasonable and probable intent, in view of the surrounding circumstances and the purposes of the contract, (cites omitted) And, although a word is generally used for its ordinary meaning, the context of the instrument may indicate it was used in a different sense, (cites omitted) If the meaning of a term is not clear, aprol (sic) evidence is admissible to resolve the ambiguity, but not to alter the terms of the contract____the Restatement of Contracts, Second, § 240 provides: “Agreements and nego”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A property settlement agreement between husband and wife will be enforced by the courts in accordance with the same rules of law applying to determining the validity of contracts generally.”
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.