Albert v. Albert

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying retroactivity in adjustments to support payments for wife and then minor child without distinction
• applying retroactivity in adjustments to support payments for wife and then minor child without distinction
• “[A]n order modifying a prior support order is ordinarily retroactive to the date of filing of a petition for modification.”
• retroactive modification of support justified where opposing party misrepresented income for child support purposes
• “It is well settled that an appellate court may consider only those facts that have been duly certified in the record on appeal.” (citing Murphy v. Murphy, 599 A.2d 647, 642 ([Pa. Super.] 1991)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Bennyhoff v. Pappert
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-12-19· cited 61×
• Krebs v. Krebs
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-03-05· cited 42×
• Gephart v. Gephart
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-12-15· cited 38×
• Lundy v. Manchel
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-09-30· cited 34×
• Simmons v. Simmons
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-12-31· cited 31×
• Sirio v. Sirio
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-06-24· cited 29×
• Claudio v. Dean MacHine Co., Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-08-01· cited 5×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Town Sound & Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motors Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1992-10-05· cited 71×
• Murphy v. Murphy
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-10-03· cited 56×
• McAuliffe v. McAuliffe
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-09-16· cited 40×
• Holcomb v. Holcomb
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-01-31· cited 8×
• Purdue v. Purdue
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-10-12· cited 8×