443 Pa. Super. 664 - Jayne v. Jayne’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

49 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e have held that the marital misconduct which must be considered with regard to a divorce based upon indignities is that misconduct which occurred prior to the right to divorce accruing. [ Schuback v. ] Schuback, [ 412 Pa.Super. 233 ] 603 A.2d [194,] 196 [ (Pa.Super.1992) ]. As a result, any misconduct in which Husband may have engaged after the separation is not to be considered unless it goes to support misconduct occurring prior to the accrual of the right to divorce. Bonawitz v. Bonawitz, [ 246 Pa.Super. 257 ] 369 A.2d 1310, 1312 (1976). In other words, Husband's conduct after Wife's filing of the complaint for divorce should not be considered in deciding the sufficiency of the allegations in that complaint for a divorce based on indignities unless it is related to or supports similar conduct prior to the accrual of the right to divorce. See McCaskey v. McCaskey, [ 253 Pa.Super. 360 ] 385 A.2d 378 (1978) (holding that proof of indignities occurring after parties' separation was admissible as evidence which shed light upon the behavior of the parties prior to separation); Lee v. Lee, [ 185 Pa.Super. 252 ] 137 A.2d 827 (1958) (holding that the conduct of the parties after separation is relevant for the purpose of shedding light upon their behavior prior to the separation).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 92 - Smc v. Wpc · S.M.C. v. W.P.C.

2. “Our scope of review for purposes of evaluating a trial court’s award of alimony is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion exists when the judgment of the trial court is manifestly unreasonable or is the result of prejudice, bias or ill-will. While it is not an appellate court’s duty to create the record or assess credibility, we must nevertheless examine the existing record to ascertain whether sufficient facts are present to support the trial court’s order. If sufficient evidence exists in the record to substantiate the trial court’s action, and the trial court has properly applied accurate case law to the relevant facts, then we must affirm. Also, the purpose of alimony is not to reward one party and punish another, but rather to ensure that the reasonable needs of the person who is unable to support himself/herself through appropriate employment are met.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 165 - Leicht, D. v. Leicht, P. · 2000 Pa. Super. 96 - Gilliland v. Gilliland

3. “As for the court’s holding that wife is not entitled to APL for the time when she lived with boyfriend, we find no abuse of discretion. First, we note our agreement with husband that the court’s rationale in denying wife APL for the time she lived with her boyfriend appears not to be based simply upon her cohabitation, but rather upon her failure to prove her needs in defending herself in the divorce action...Alimony pendente lite is designed to be temporary and is available to those who demonstrate the need for maintenance and professional services during the pendency of the proceedings. Wife failed to demonstrate her need. Accordingly, we find no abuse of the court’s discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Smith