Prol v. Prol

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that wife’s absolute right to appeal became final when this Court affirmed divorce decree and wife was “not entitled to the continuation of [APL] during the pendency of her discretionary appeals”
• award of APL not dependent upon status of parties but on state of litigation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Schenk v. Schenk
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-07-19· cited 97×
• Haentjens v. Haentjens
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-10-15· cited 19×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Process Gas Consumers Group
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-08-23· cited 119×
• Isralsky v. Isralsky
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-04-28· cited 100×
• DeMasi v. DeMasi
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-08-26· cited 57×
• Nemoto v. Nemoto
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-02-26· cited 41×
• Commonwealth v. Byrd
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-04-11· cited 34×
• McNaughton v. McNaughton
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-02-13· cited 31×
• Spink v. Spink
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-11-18· cited 25×
• Shuda v. Shuda
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-12-19· cited 15×
• Commonwealth Ex Rel. Brown v. Brown
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-04-13· cited 10×