Penhallow v. Penhallow’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2025
9 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 · Raheb v. Lemenski · Fiske v. MacGregor, Division of Brunswick · Parker v. Parker · Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank v. De Beru
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) A premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that: “(1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; and “(2) The agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party: (i) Was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party; (ii) Did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided; and (iii)Did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party. “(b) The burden of proof as to each of the elements required in order to have a premarital agreement held to be unenforceable shall be on the party seeking to have the agreement declared unenforceable and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. “(c) If a provision of a premarital agreement modifies or eliminates spousal support and that modification or elimination causes one party to the agreement to be eligible for support under a program of public assistance at the time of separation or marital dissolution, a court, notwithstanding the terms of the agreement, may require the other party to provide support to the extent necessary to avoid that eligibility. “(d) An issue of unconscionability of a premarital agreement shall be decided by the court as a matter of law.” (E”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Marsocci v. Marsocci
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.