371 Pa. Super. 248 - Ryan v. DeLong’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

31 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “On appeal, a child support order will not be disturbed unless the trial court committed an abuse of discretion. Kopp v. Turley, 359 Pa.Super. 106, 109 , 518 A.2d 588, 590 (1986). An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment. It must be a misapplication of the law or an unreasonable exercise of judgment. Id., 359 Pa.Superior Ct. at 109, 518 A.2d at 590 . In order to calculate the support obligation of each parent, the court must first determine the reasonable needs of the children. Reitmeyer v. Reitmeyer, 355 Pa.Super. 318, 324 , 513 A.2d 448, 452 (1986). Reasonable expenses are not limited to the bare necessities. A child is entitled to a reasonable standard of living based upon the social station, fortune and financial achievements of their parents. Commonwealth ex rel. Stump v. Church, 333 Pa.Super. 166, 172 , 481 A.2d 1358, 1361 (1984). The court must next determine, the respective abilities of the parents to support their children. To arrive at this amount, the court must make an allowance for the reasonable living expenses of each parent. The court must then calculate the parent’s net income or earning capacity if that figure differs from actual income. Lyday [v. Lyday, 360 Pa.Super. 16 ] at 21-22, 519 A.2d [967] at 970. The trial court must consider every aspect of a parent’s financial ability to pay support. The actual and potential cash flow from his property interests, financial resources, stock holdings and other investments should all be considered. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 373 Pa. Super. 235 - Marshall v. Ross

2. “In interpreting Melzer , the Superior Court has adhered to a middle course. We have recognized the validity of the Melzer formula but at the same time we have remained aware of the majorities' [sic] admonition that the formula should not be inflexibly applied. Therefore, we have required trial courts to calculate the Melzer formula but we have allowed them to adjust the resulting support obligation if deviation from the formula is warranted under the particular circumstances. Riess v. DeLuca, 353 Pa.Super. 622, 625 , 510 A.2d 1239, 1241 (1986); Reitmeyer v. Reitmeyer, 355 Pa.Super. 318, 324 , 513 A.2d 448, 452 (1986).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 390 Pa. Super. 226 - King v. King

3. “To insure that an actual dollar figure is determined as to the reasonable needs and expenses of the parents and children, the calculated Melzer formula must be in the record. (emphasis added).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 376 Pa. Super. 76 - Funk v. Funk