Friedman v. Schoolman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Parties to an Antenuptial Agreement providing for the disposition of their respective estates do not deal at arm’s length, but stand in a relation of mutual confidence and trust that calls for the highest degree of good faith and a reasonable provision for the surviving spouse, or in the absence of such a provision a full and fair disclosure of all pertinent facts and circumstances. Gelb Estate, 425 Pa. 117, 123 , 228 A.2d 367 ; Kaufmann Estate, 404 Pa. 131, 136 , 171 A.2d 48 ; McClellan Estate, 365 Pa. 401, 407 , 75 A.2d 595 ; Whitmer’s Estate, 224 Pa. 413 , 73 A. 551 . However, it is too often forgotten that one of the two principal purposes of an Antenuptial Agreement is to change the provisions which the statutory law of Pennsylvania makes for a surviving spouse. Emery Estate, 362 Pa. 142, 147 , 66 A.2d 262 . (1) An Antenuptial Agreement is presumptively valid and binding upon the parties thereto. (2) The person seeking to nullify or avoid or circumvent the Agreement has the burden of proving the invalidity of the Agreement by clear and convincing evidence that the deceased spouse at the time of the Agreement made neither (a) a reasonable provision for the intended spouse, nor (b) a full and fair disclosure of his (or her) worth. Gelb’s Estate, 425 Pa. 123 , 228 A.2d 367 , supra; Kaufmann’s Estate, 404 Pa. 136 , 171 A.2d 48 , supra; McClellan’s Estate, 365 Pa. 407 , 75 A.2d 595 , supra; Emery’s Estate, 362 Pa. 142, 146 , 66 A.2d 262 , supra; Snyder’s Estate, 375 Pa. 185, ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 369 Pa. Super. 504 - Nitkiewicz v. Nitkiewicz · 338 Pa. Super. 157 - In Re Estate of Geyer

2. “Certain rules have been established in this area of the law: (a) a contract to make a will or to bequeath by will, as other contracts, must be established by proof of an offer, an acceptance and legal consideration (Reynolds v. Williams, 282 Pa. 148 , 127 A. 473 ; Kocher Estate, 354 Pa. 81 , 46 A.2d 488 ; Goldstein Estate, 384 Pa. 1 , 119 A.2d 278 ); (b) the terms of the contract must be shown with certainty and lucidity (Soffee v. Hall, 377 Pa. 306 , 105 A.2d 144 ; Hook’s Estate, 207 Pa. 203 , 56 A. 428 ); (c) the evidence must be scrutinized with great care (Burgess v. Burgess, 109 Pa. 312 , 1 A. 167 ; Bradshaw’s Estate, 243 Pa. 114 , 89 A. 831 ; Strafford v. Reed, supra, [ 363 Pa. 405 , 70 A.2d 345 ]); (d) there must be ‘direct evidence’ in proof of the contract (Calvert v. Eberly, 302 Pa. 152, 156 , 153 A. 146 ; Consentino v. Vittoria, 394 Pa. 538, 541 , 147 A.2d 839 ); (e) as in the case of other claims against a decedent’s estate, the evidence in proof of the contract, must be ‘clear, direct, precise and convincing’ (Petro v. Secary Estate, 403 Pa. 540 , 170 A.2d 325 ; Klemow Estate, 411 Pa. 136, 140 , 191 A.2d 365 ); ...”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 394 Pa. Super. 234 - Hatbob v. Brown