Budnick v. Budnick

How courts have described this case

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

• “[I]n the absence of clear language to the contrary, statutes must be construed to operate prospectively only.”
• “[I]n the absence of clear language to the contrary, statutes must be construed to operate prospectively only.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Diament v. Diament
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-01-23· cited 27×
• Keystone Coal Mining Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-01-25· cited 22×
• Commercial National Bank v. Seubert & Associates, Inc.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-09-06· cited 16×
• Focht v. Focht
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-11-23· cited 16×
• Lykins v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-01-25· cited 6×
• Brubacher Excavating Inc. v. Commerce Bank/Harrisburg N.A.
  Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas· 2008-12-22· cited 1×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Platek v. Platek
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-12-30· cited 59×
• Johnson v. Johnson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-01-19· cited 50×
• Gee v. Gee
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-05-13· cited 49×
• Dech v. Dech
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-04-26· cited 33×
• Solomon v. Solomon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-06-17· cited 33×
• Hurley v. Hurley
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-05-03· cited 30×
• Kohl v. Kohl
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-09-05· cited 29×
• DeMatteis v. DeMatteis
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-11-15· cited 24×
• Nuhfer v. Nuhfer
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-12-04· cited 14×
• Flick v. Flick
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-08-28· cited 12×
• Kozich v. Kozich
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-09-26· cited 10×