420 Pa. Super. 146 - Atkinson v. Atkinson’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
13 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 366 Pa. Super. 19 - DeMasi v. DeMasi · 251 Pa. Super. 103 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. ReDavid v. ReDavid · 251 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth Ex Rel. Wasiolek v. Wasiolek · 339 Pa. Super. 312 - Butler v. Butler · 354 Pa. Super. 610 - Hesidenz v. Carbin
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The trial court] determined that the issue was not whether the mother was caring for her children as opposed to their children, but whether under the facts of the case what the earning capacity would be. This is the correct analysis under these facts, particularly since there is no evidence of the mother’s earning capacity---- On this record, imputing earning capacity to the mother is a fiction which simply shifts the burden of supporting the wife’s child of the first marriage to her second husband, who has no legal obligation to do so. The concept of imposing a support Order based on earning potential ... derives from the principle that a person who has a support obligation may not withdraw from income!-] producing endeavors to defeat the right of support to his/her dependents. It has never been the law that a mother who elects to care for her young child is chargeable with voluntary withdrawal from income-producing activity to defeat the right to support her child by a previous marriage.”
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.