348 Pa. Super. 237 - Fenstermaker v. Fenstermaker’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably 359 Pa. Super. 344 - Major v. Major (1986), 417 Pa. Super. 581 - Justice v. Justice (1992)
40 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 Pico v. Cohn · 318 Pa. Super. 311 - Wolk v. Wolk · McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co. · 333 Pa. Super. 483 - Hall v. Hall · 341 Pa. Super. 116 - Mandia v. Mandia
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By the expression 'extrinsic or collateral fraud' is meant some act or conduct of the prevailing party which has prevented a fair submission of the controversy. Among these are the keeping of the defeated party away from court by false promise of compromise, or fraudulently keeping him in ignorance of the action. Another instance is where an attorney without authority pretends to represent a party and corruptly connives at his defeat, or where an attorney has been regularly employed and corruptly sells out his client's interest. The fraud in such case is extrinsic or collateral to the question determined by the court. The reason for the rule is that there must be an end to litigation; and, where a party has had his day in court and knows what the issues are, he must be prepared to meet and expose perjury then and there: Pico v. Cohn , [ 91 Cal. 129 , 27 P. 537 (Cal. 1891) ]. Where the alleged perjury relates to a question upon which there was a conflict, and it was necessary for the court to determine the truth or falsity of the testimony, the fraud is intrinsic and is concluded by the judgment, unless there be a showing that the jurisdiction of the court has been imposed upon, or that by some fraudulent act of the prevailing party the other has been deprived of an opportunity for a fair trial. Bleakley v. Barclay , [ 75 Kan. 462 , 89 P. 906 (Kan. 1907) ].”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Opening or vacating divorce decrees “A motion to open a decree of divorce or annulment may be made only within 30 days after entry of the decree and not thereafter. Such motion may lie where it is alleged that the decree was procured by intrinsic fraud or that there is new evidence relating to the cause of action which will sustain the attack upon its validity. Amotion to vacate a decree or strike a judgment alleged to be void because of extrinsic fraud, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or because of a fatal defect apparent upon the face of the record, must be made within five years after entry of the final decree.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(d) The court need not determine all claims at one time but may enter a decree adjudicating a specific claim or claims.”
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.