478 F. Supp. 548 - Simon v. Simon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is clear, therefore, that plaintiff was afforded a full opportunity for a hearing on the merits of her claim. An injunction prohibiting her from litigating now what she could have litigated before does not violate her constitutional right to due process. . . . “It is true that a Florida court could not enter an order which operates directly on title to real estate located in Pennsylvania. Such an order could only be issued under the in rem jurisdiction of a court in the state which is the situs of the property. See Hanson v. Denkla, 357 U.S. 235, 246 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1236 , 2 L.Ed. 2d 1283 (1958); 27B C.J.S. Divorce §383 (1959). A court having personal jurisdiction of the interested parties, however, would be competent to order a conveyance of the land, wherever situated. “This important distinction was recognized in Whitmer v. Whitmer, 243 Pa. Super. 462 , 365 A. 2d 1316 (1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 822 , 98 S.Ct. 67 (1977). . . . “In the present case, if Mrs. Simon had litigated her claims in the divorce proceedings and prevailed on the merits, the Florida court could have ordered the husband to make any conveyance of the Pennsylvania real estate that it deemed proper. Under Whitmer, such an order would clearly have been recognized as valid by the Pennsylvania courts, since Mr. Simon was subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida. “It follows then that the injunction under which Mrs. Simon presently suffers is fully valid and entitled to recognition. The order is not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simon v. Simon