Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 Pa. Super. 363 - McNulty v. McNulty

347 Pa. Super. 363 - McNulty v. McNulty’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably 366 Pa. Super. 19 - DeMasi v. DeMasi (1987), 365 Pa. Super. 409 - Johnson v. Johnson (1988)

44 state decisions

2201985199020002010decided

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 · 346 Pa. Super. 279 - Casey v. Geiger · 316 Pa. Super. 282 - Ruth v. Ruth · 331 Pa. Super. 1 - Semasek v. Semasek · 347 Pa. Super. 289 - Hollman v. Hollman

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

  1. “"Alimony" ... is a duty arising out of marriage but is distinguished in that it continues after divorce when fixed in conjunction with a divorce or annulment decree. Its purpose is not to reward one party and to punish the other, but rather to ensure that reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself or herself through appropriate employment, are met. Semasek v. Semasek, 331 Pa.Superior Ct. 1, 479 A.2d 1047 (1984).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Appellant next argues that the support award was an abuse of discretion because it contravened an oral agreement between the parties to the effect that appellant would not be responsible for appellee’s educational expenses, and because appellee had a proven earning capacity as a phlebotomist. The assumption underlying appellant’s claim is that because his wife had some employable skills and because he has, from the outset, disapproved of her increasing them, his marital obligation is obviated.... As the lower court points out, the “appropriate employment” referred to in [the applicable Pennsylvania statute] does not refer to “any” employment. “It means employment that is suited to the expectancies and abilities of the parties.” ... To decide otherwise would, in fact, undermine the intent, of rehabilitative maintenance since nearly all dependant spouses who win such awards could, theoretically, obtain employment in some menial and unskilled capacity. The award is of fixed duration, and its object is to achieve an approximation of parity, both of which are goals described by our case law____ Such an award is intended to have long term effect in that it looks to the spouse’s ability, by developing a potential for self-support, to obtain complete autonomy. We agree with the maxim that “rehabilitative alimony is most appropriate where the dependant spouse is still young, the marriage of relatively short duration, and the dependant spouse has the ability to develop or redevelop qua”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 401. Decree of court The court may order alimony, reasonable counsel fees and expenses pending final disposition of the matters provided for in this subsection and upon final disposition, the court may award costs to the party in whose favor the order or decree shall be entered, or may order that each party shall pay his or her own costs, or may order that costs be divided equitably as it shall appear just and reasonable. § 502. Alimony pendente lite, counsel fees and expenses The court may, upon petition, in proper cases, allow a spouse reasonable alimony pendente lite and reasonable counsel fees and expenses.”
    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.