Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 A3D 554 - Morgan, S. v. Morgan, D.

Morgan, S. v. Morgan, D.’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Knorr v. Knorr · 2005 Pa. Super. 130 - McClain v. McClain · 2008 Pa. Super. 51 - Glover v. Severino · 438 Pa. Super. 26 - Jones v. Jones · 2007 Pa. Super. 179 - Krankowski v. O'NEIL

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

  1. “In 2003, the parties were divorced in Maryland. In conjunction with the divorce, the parties entered into a property settlement agreement (“PSA”), which provided, in relevant part, that Father would pay Mother alimony and child support. The PSA provided that Father’s alimony obligation would remain fixed until July 1, 2007, after which either party could seek to modify the amount of the obligation. The PSA was incorporated into the divorce decree. On May 3, 2007, Father registered the Maryland divorce decree and PSA in Franklin County. Almost immediately thereafter he filed a petition seeking to reduce his alimony obligation. In response, Mother filed a petition seeking to increase Father’s alimony obligation. These filings initiated approximately four years of proceedings regarding Father’s alimony obligation, including an appeal to this Court, our remand to the trial court for further evidentiary proceedings, and then a subsequent appeal. In 2011, as the second appeal from the alimony proceedings was pending before this Court, Mother filed a support action because Father told her that he was going to cease paying child support for C.M. As part of the ensuing support proceedings, Father’s employer submitted income information to the trial court that revealed that Father had been lying about his income and submitting falsified documents, including federal tax r?turns, to the trial court in connection with the alimony action.[ 2 ] It was later discovered that the tax returns F”
    1 later decision 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.