378 Pa. Super. 280 - Cunningham v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably Baker v. Baker (1995), 418 Pa. Super. 39 - McAuliffe v. McAuliffe (1992)
26 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 Sutliff v. Sutliff · 251 Pa. Super. 103 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. ReDavid v. ReDavid · 286 Pa. Super. 562 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Hagerty v. Eyster · 280 Pa. Super. 399 - Dunn v. Teti · 202 Pa. Super. 573 - Commonwealth v. Miller
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Depreciation and depletion expenses should be deducted from gross income only where they reflect an actual reduction in the personal income of the party claiming the deductions, such as where, e.g., he or she actually expends funds to replace worn equipment or purchase new reserves.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well established that depreciation and depletion expenses, permitted under federal income tax law without proof of actual loss, will not automatically be deducted from gross income for purposes of determining awards of alimony and equitable distribution. In determining the financial responsibilities of the parties to a dissolving marriage, the court looks to the actual disposable income of the parties: [T]hat income must reflect actual available financial resources and not the oft-time fictional financial picture which develops as the result of depreciation deductions taken against . . . income as permitted by the federal income tax laws. Depreciation and depletion expenses should be deducted from gross income only where they reflect an actual reduction in the personal income of the party claiming the deductions, such as where, e.g., he or she actually expends the funds to replace worn equipment or purchase new reserves.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[the defendant] does not claim . . . that he in fact spent any of his $24,000 [ gross ] income . . . to replace . . . or purchase new. . . reserves.”
1 later decision 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.