410 Pa. Super. 146 - Murphy v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 441 Pa. Super. 281 - Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp. (1995), Commonwealth v. Bracalielly (1995)
63 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 In re the Primary Election of May 21, 1991 · Commonwealth v. Sneed · Stickel v. Ohio Casualty Co. · Commonwealth v. Young · Fried v. Fried
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]ur scope of review in equitable distribution matters is limited. It is well established that absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we will not reverse an award of equitable distribution. [In addition,] [w]hen reviewing the record of the proceedings, we are guided by the fact that trial courts have broad equitable powers to effectuate [economic] justice and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. [Further,] [t]he finder of fact is entitled to weigh the evidence presented and assess its credibility. The fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and the Superior Court will not disturb the credibility determinations of the court below.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our scope of review in equitable distribution matters is limited. Lyons v. Lyons, 401 Pa.Super. 271, 276 , 585 A.2d 42, 45 (1991). It is well established that “absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, we will not reverse an award of equitable distribution.” Hill v. Hill, 401 Pa.Super. 183, 185 , 584 A.2d 1040, 1041 (1991), citing Hovis v. Hovis, 518 Pa. 137 , 541 A.2d 1378 (1988). When reviewing the record of the proceedings, we are guided by the fact that trial courts have broad equitable powers to effectuate justice and we will find an abuse of discretion only if the trial court has misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures. Lyons v. Lyons, supra [401 Pa.Super.] at 276, 585 A.2d at 45 . The finder of fact is entitled to weigh the evidence presented and access its credibility. Williamson v. Williamson, 402 Pa.Super. 276, 286 , 586 A.2d 967, 972 (1991). The fact finder is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and the Superior Court will not disturb the credibility determinations of the court below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the context of determining amount of alimony or alimony pendente lite, proper employment of judicial discretion includes the mandate to apply the Divorce Code in a compassionate and reasonable manner to effectuate the overriding goal of achieving economic justice between the parties.”
2 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.