index to the pennsylvania family lawyer volumes 1-32 compiled by ...

CASE DIGESTS BY AUTHORSInitial Custody Determination in a RelocationSituation. [Hurley v. Hurley, 754 A.2d 1283 (Pa.Super. 2000)]. 22:62-63.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Superior Court ReaffirmsTrial Court’s Discretion to Apply Gruber toIntrastate Relocations, Reject theRecommendation of a Custody Evaluator, andIncrease the Custodial Time of the Non-Petitioning Parent. [Masser v. Miller, 909 A.2d846 (Pa. Super. 2006)]. 29:15-17.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Termination of ChildSupport Order Pursuant to Rule. [1]910.19(e)Does not Automatically Bar a Later Claim forPost-Majority Support. [Style v. Shaub, 955 A.2d403 (Pa. Super. 2008)]. 30:208-11.Krentzman, Cheryl B. Trial Court did notImproperly Modify Custody Order in ContemptProceeding by Failing to Impose Sanction ofReturn of Child to Jurisdiction, but Failure toImpose any Sanctions for Contempt andPronouncement Regarding Future JurisdictionConstituted Errors. [Harcar v. Harcar, 982 A.2d1230 (Pa. Super. 2009)] 32:9-12.Ladov, David L. Buy/Sell Provisions ofShareholders' Agreement not Binding onValuation in Terms of Agreement do not ActuallyReflect Current Value. [Butler v. Butler, 541 Pa.364, 663 A.2d 148 (1995)]. 18(1):7,18-20.Ladov, David L. Guidelines Deviation in SupportCases Must be Substantiated. [Anzalone v.Anzalone, 449 Pa. Super. 201, 673 A.2d 377(1996)]. 18(3):3-5.Ladov, David L. Post-Separation Increases inValue of Nonmarital Assets: The Line GrowsBrighter. [Litmans v. Litmans, 449 Pa. Super. 209,673 A.2d 382 (1996)]. 18(3):7-8.Ladov, David L. Postseparation Interest andDividends Earned on Nonmarital Bequest is not inMarital Pot. [Ling v. Ling, 442 Pa. Super. 106,659 A.2d 805 (1995)]. 18(1):7.Ladov, David L. Prenuptial Agreement: ExpressWaiver of Alimony or Support does not ConstituteWaiver of Alimony Pendente Lite. [Musko v.Musko, 447 Pa. Super. 150, 668 A.2d 561(1995)]. 18(1):20.Ladov, David L. Relocation: Gruber is Alive andWell. [Gancas v. Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683A.2d 1207 (1996)]. 19:8-10.Ladov, David L. Superior Court Declares NoRetroactive Credit for Child Support on Behalf ofEmancipated Minor. [Holcomb v. Holcomb, 448Pa. Super. 154, 670 A.2d 1155 (1996)]. 18(3):5-6.Ladov, David L. Third Parties may be on EqualFooting, But do They Have Equal Standing? [InRe: G.C., 449 Pa. Super. 258, 673 A.2d 932(1996)]. 18(3):8-11.Ladov, David L. Third Parties Now on EqualFooting in Custody Cases–Supreme CourtApparently Overrules Presumption in Favor ofParents. [Rowles v. Rowles, 542 Pa. Super. 443,668 A.2d. 126 (1995)]. 18(1):6-7.Laffey-Ferry, Marion. When Local Court’sReasoning is not Evident from Record Failure toFile Rule 1925(a) Opinion Caused Reversal andRemand. [Bold v. Bold, 939 A.2d 892 (Pa. Super.2007)]. 30:3-5.LeComte, Samatha R. In Loco Parentis Requiredfor Standing in Custody Cases. [Argenio v.Fenton, 703 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. 20:38-40.Levin, Ann V. Presumption of Paternity andDoctrine of Estoppel Explained. [Fish v. Behers,559 Pa. 523, 741 A.2d 721 (1999)]. 22:7-8.Levine, Scott L.Temporary Institutionalizationdoes not Constitute Permanent Challenge inCircumstances. [R.C. v. J.S., 957 A.2d 759 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. 30:215-16.Liechty, Linda C. Trial Court's InadvertentDelayed Filing of Reconsidered EquitableDistribution Order Causes Appeal to Fail.[Weinzetl v. Weinzetl, 452 Pa. Super. 271, 681A.2d 813 (1996)]. 19:5-6.10