351 Pa. Super. 588 - Sergi v. Sergi’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Sutliff v. Sutliff (1988), 426 Pa. Super. 245 - Perlberger v. Perlberger (1993)
78 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 339 Pa. Super. 185 - Braderman v. Braderman · 332 Pa. Super. 526 - King v. King · 331 Pa. Super. 1 - Semasek v. Semasek · 309 Pa. Super. 16 - Platek v. Platek · 326 Pa. Super. 496 - Sutliff v. Sutliff
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]quitable results will most likely flow from providing the court with the most recent information available. . . .”
8 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘Under this standard, we do not usurp the hearing court’s duty as factfinder. 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.’ Barnhart v. Barnhart, 343 Pa.Super. 234, 237 , 494 A.2d 443, 444 (1985); Semasek v. Semasek, 331 Pa.Super. 1, 6 , 479 A.2d 1047, 1050 (1984). ‘An abuse of discretion is not found lightly, but only upon a showing of clear and convincing evidence____ However, an abuse of discretion will be found by this Court if the trial court failed to follow proper legal procedure or misapplied the law.’ Braderman v. Braderman, 339 Pa.Super. 185, 190 , 488 A.2d 613, 615 (1985).”
4 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.