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

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE[Waddington v. Waddington, 425 Pa. Super. 241,624 A.2d 657 (1993)]. 14(4):10-11.Courts Have Equitable Power to Appoint Trusteein Receivership. [Mayhue v. Mayhue, 336 Pa.Super. 188, 485 A.2d 494 (1984)]. 6:754-56.Courts Have Equitable Powers Under Section401(c) to Award Reimbursement Alimony.[Lehmicke v. Lehmicke, 339 Pa. Super. 559, 489A.2d 782 (1985)]. 6:692-96.Courts Imposes Sanctions for Failure to Complywith Discovery. [Scott v. Scott, 190 N. J. Super.189, 462 A.2d 614 (1983)]. 4:502-3.Courts May Attach Pension as Contempt Sanction.[Richardson v. Richardson, 774 A.2d 1267 (Pa.Super. 2001)]. Patricia T. Brennan. 23:60-62.Courts may not Divide Social Security Benefits inSupport. [Silver v. Pinskey, not reported in A.2d,2008 WL 902715 (Pa. Super. April 4, 2008),rearg. En banc granted May 30, 2008]. NatalieFamous. 30:86-87.Current Standard of Living and Child’s NeedsControlling in Private School Tuition Case WhereChild did not Attend Private School Prior toSeparation. [Gibbons v. Kugle, 908 A.2d 916 (Pa.Super. 2006)]. Al Shemtob. 29:9.Custodial Mother Denied Right to Move Childfrom Pennsylvania. [Lozinak v. Lozinak, 390 Pa.Super. 597, 569 A.2d 353 3 (1990)]. Emanuel A.Bertin. 11:133-34.Custody Action Filed While Juvenile ProceedingsAre Pending Is An Unwarranted Waste of JudicialResources. Elizabeth J. McCall. 31:6-7.Custody–Agreed Consent Order vs. Custody Order(Subsequent to Judicial Determination)–Change ofCircumstances Need not be Shown to ModifyCustody. [Vivian B. v. Raymond B., 129 P.L.J.410 (1981)]. 2:227-29.Custody Agreements will not Only be UpheldWhere All of the Terms are Known by theLitigants. [Yates v. Yates, 936 A.2d 1191 (Pa.Super 2007). Michele G. Bononi. 30:9-10.Custody Battle: A Mockery of the System.[Lambert v. Lambert, 409 Pa. Super. 552, 598A.2d 561 (1991)]. 12(6):7-9.Custody: Best Interest of Child is Paramount.[Baumhor v. Baumhor, 407 Pa. Super. 276, 595A.2d 1147 (1991)]. 12(6):10-11.Custody–Importance of Religious TrainingRevisited. [In The Matter of Boylan v. Boylan,395 Pa. Super. 380, 577 A.2d 218 (1990)].11:178.Custody Modification: Due Notice Required.[Choplosky v. Choplosky, 400 Pa. Super. 590, 584A.2d 340 (1990)]. 12(2):4-5.Custody Modification–The Trial Court MustAssess the Potential Harm of Disturbing ExistingCustody Arrangements. [Johns v. Cioci, 865 A.2d931 (Pa. Super. 2004)]. Daniel G. Ronca. 27:53-54.Custody of Child Granted to Aunt Over Mother'sObjections. [Vicki N. v. Josephine N., 437 Pa.Super. 166, 649 A.2d 709 (1994)]. 17(1):5-6.Custody of Child Granted to Father and Denied toGrandmother. [Dorsey v. Freeman, 438 Pa. Super.26, 652 A.2d 352 (1994)]. 17(2):6-7.Custody of Child not Factor for Purposes ofEquitable Distribution. [Bold v. Bold, 358 Pa.Super. 7, 516 A.2d 741 (1986)]. 8:934-36.Custody Relocation Standard Prior to InitialCustody Order. [Marshall v. Marshall, 814 A.2d1226 (Pa. Super. 2002)]. Lori K. Shemtob. 25:4-5.Custody–Standard for Review is Gross Abuse ofDiscretion. [Com. ex rel. Robinson v. Robinson,505 Pa. 226, 478 A.2d 800 (1984)]. 5:591-93.Custody: Superior Court Determines Best Interestsof Child. [Fisher v. Fisher, 370 Pa. Super. 87, 535A.2d 1163 (1988)]. 9(2):13-14.Danger to Children Permits Exercise of26