Commonwealth v. George’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 60 state decisions

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

1. ““We decide only that where, as here, the husband provides a home, food, clothing and reasonable medical attention, he cannot be directed to pay a given stipend to the wife so that she may have it available for her own personal disposition. The method whereby a husband secures to his wife and family the necessities of life is not a proper subject for judicial consideration and determination in the absence of proof of desertion without cause or neglect to maintain.” Id., 358 Pa. at 124 , 56 A.2d at 231 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 271 Pa. Super. 389 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Goldstein v. Goldstein · 394 Pa. Super. 154 - Shilling v. Shilling

2. ““The legislature intended Section 733, and prior statutes from which it was derived, to provide the method by which a wife who has been wrongfully deserted by the husband or who has been deprived of support by the neglect of the husband, could seek judicial assistance in securing a reasonable allowance for the support of herself and family. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commissioner v. Rankin · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Bessie N. Rankin. Robert L. Rankin v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

3. ““This record established that appellant has provided adequate shelter, food, clothing and reasonable medical attention. It presents conflicting concepts of family financial management. Prosecutrix does not suggest that appellant cease his present performance but desires to secure in addition thereto a monthly allowance for herself of $300. Her charges of ‘neglect to maintain’ are general and their weight greatly lessened by her testimony in cross-examination. That the wife is not receiving that degree of control over her husband’s income to which she feels entitled does not establish ‘neglect’ within the meaning of the law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 271 Pa. Super. 389 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Goldstein v. Goldstein