365 Pa. Super. 409 - Johnson v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably 426 Pa. Super. 245 - Perlberger v. Perlberger (1993), 371 Pa. Super. 230 - Aletto v. Aletto (1988)
67 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 Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Fried v. Fried · 339 Pa. Super. 185 - Braderman v. Braderman · Kieffer v. Kieffer · 316 Pa. Super. 282 - Ruth v. Ruth
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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Actual need must be shown in order to justify an award.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“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 procedure or misapplied the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a proceeding for divorce or annulment, the court shall, upon request of either party equitably divide, distribute or assign the marital property between the parties without regard to marital misconduct in such proportions as the court deems just after considering all relevant factors including: (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.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hovis v. Hovis
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.