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

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLEParties can Obtain Both Alimony Pendente Liteand Support. [Com. ex rel. Homsher v. Homsher].289 Pa. Super. 112, 432 A.2d 1076 (1981)].2:197.Parties Pigeonholing of "Foster" Parent notDispositive in Determining Standing to Adopt. [InRe: Adoption of J.M.E., 416 Pa. Super. 110, 610A.2d 995 (1992)]. 13(4):10-11.Parties’ Residency at Time of Filing CustodyComplaint Governs Exercise of UCCJAJurisdiction. [Simpkins v. Disney, 416 Pa. Super.243, 610 A.2d 1062 (1992)]. 13(5):6-7.Parties' Separate Estate does not Prevent Partyfrom Receiving Alimony Pendente Lite. [Orr v.Orr, 315 Pa. Super. 168, 461 A.2d 850 (1983)].4:466-67.Partition. [Meno v. Meno, 18 D.&C.3d 250(Washing ton Co. 1981)]. 2:131.Partition Action is Being Held to be Supersededby Equitable Distribution Provisions of theDivorce Code. [Pietsch v. Pietsch, Lancaster Co.,Equity No. 21 (1981)]. 2:196.Partition is not Pre-Empted by EquitableDistribution nor does it Defeat Claims forAncillary Relief Under the Divorce Code of 1980.[Daniels v. Daniels, 73 Berks Co. L.J. 319 (1981).2:194-96.Partition Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code. [Ferriv. Ferri, 1 A.C.D.D. 122 (Allegh. Co., 1981)].2:229-30, 232.Party Prejudice fromIntroducing Evidence as aJustifiable Discovery Sanction. [Hein v. Hein, 717A.2d 1053 (Pa. Super. 1998)]. Stephanie H.Bacine. 21:4-5.Paternity and Visitation: Separate and DistinctIssues. [Mitchell v. Randall, 368 Pa. Super. 421,534 A.2d 508 (1987)]. 9(2):14-15.Paternity by Estoppel. [B.K.B. v. J.G.K. v.M.M.K., 954 A.2d 630 (Pa. Super. 2008)].Stephanie H. Winegrad. 30:203-5.Paternity by Estoppel: If One Waits, It may beToo Late! [Ellison v. Lopez, 959 A. 2d 295 (Pa.Super. 2008)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 31:7-8.Paternity by Estoppel not Recognized to EstablishMaternity. [Bahl v. Lambert Farms, Inc., 819 A.2d534 (Pa. 2003)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 25:63-65.Paternity Case: Constitutional Right to Counsel.[Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 410 Pa. Super. 549, 600A.2d 589 (1991)]. 13(1):4-5.Paternity Issue Revisited. [Sanders v. Sanders, 384Pa. Super. 311, 558 A.2d 556 (1989)]. 10:94.Paternity: Recent Opinions by the Superior Court.[McConnell v. Berkheimer, 781 A.2d 206 (Pa.Super. 2001), Tregoning v.Wiltsheck and Perez,782 A.2d 1001 (Pa. Super. 2001), and B.S. and R.S. v T. M., 782 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Super. 2001)].Caren E. Morrissey. 23:56-58.Paternity: Right of Counsel for IndigentDefendants. [Corra v. Coll, 305 Pa. Super. 179,451 A.2d 480 (1982)]. 3:358-61.Paternity Statute: When does It Apply? [Bowser v.Zachary, 375 Pa. Super. 481, 544 A.2d 1022(1988)]. 9:37.Paternity Test Disallowed. [Donnelly v.Lindenmuth, 409 Pa. Super. 341, 597 A.2d 1234(1991)]. 13(1):5-6.Paternity Testing–Let the Games Begin. [Cable v.Anthou, 499 Pa. 553, 674 A.2d 732 (1997)].Richard I. Moore. 19:76-77.Paternity: The Presumption of Legitimacy. [Scottv. Mershon, 441 Pa. Super. 551, 657 A.2d 1304(1990)]. 11:162-63.“Paving Over" Expenditures for EquipmentDoesn't Create Avenue for ChangedCircumstances or Reduced Support Obligations.[McAuliffe v. McAuliffe, 418 Pa. Super. 39, 613A.2d 20 (1992)]. 13(6):5-6.Payments from Special Needs Trust ConsideredIncome for Support Purposes. [Mencer v. Ruch,42