417 Pa. Super. 592 - McMahon v. McMahon’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably 425 Pa. Super. 228 - Laudig v. Laudig (1993), Alexander v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. (2005)
116 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 Simeone v. Simeone · Creighan v. Pittsburgh · 378 Pa. Super. 474 - Sonder v. Sonder · Brown v. Hall · 289 Pa. Super. 405 - Litwack v. Litwack
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile there is a presumption against retroactive application of statutes affecting substantive rights, a law is only retroactive in its application when it relates back and gives a previous transaction a legal effect different from that which it had under the law in effect when it transpired.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cole v. Czegan · In Re KAP“Where ... no vested right or contractual obligation is involved, an act is not retroactively construed when applied to a condition existing on its effective date even though the condition results from events prior to that date ... `[A] statute is not regarded as operating retroactively because of the mere fact that it relates to antecedent events, or draws upon antecedent facts for its operation.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(e) Modification and termination. — An order entered pursuant to this section is subject to further order of the court upon changed circumstances of either party of a substantial and continuing nature whereupon the order may be modified, suspended, terminated or reinstituted or a new order made....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Egan, E. v. Egan, R. · Peck v. Peck
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.