Moore v. Moore

How courts have described this case

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

• a support order may not be based upon the assumption that continuous unlawful pursuits will provide the anticipated income
• “[c]laimant can establish through defendant’s expenditures, without proving the source of the money, that he has a substantial income upon which an order may be based”
• individual “presumed to have earning capacity in legal pursuits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Fried v. Fried
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-11-20· cited 240×
• Johnson v. Johnson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-01-19· cited 50×
• Sutliff v. Sutliff
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-09-05· cited 48×
• Seitz v. Seitz
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1985-06-18· cited 37×
• Hoover v. Hoover
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-06-19· cited 26×
• Wechsler v. Wechsler
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-09-27· cited 25×
• Wiegand v. Wiegand
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-09-27· cited 22×
• McCormick v. McCormick
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1963-12-12· cited 14×
• Young v. Young
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-01-11· cited 12×
• Fried v. Fried
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-10-25· cited 8×
• Crossin v. Crossin
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 2008-03-12· cited 1×
• Dimock v. Dimock
  Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas· 1982-01-12
• Holbein v. Holbein
  Butler County Court of Common Pleas· 1980-04-22