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

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE928 A.2d 294 (Pa. Super. 2007)]. Darren Oglesby.29:95-96.Payments in Lieu of Property Distribution are notAlimony, Supreme Court Rules. [Zullo v. Zullo,531 Pa. 377, 613 A.2d 544 (1992)]. 13(6):10-11.Pending Actions: Order Granting Application toProceed is Interlocutory and Non-Appealable.[Bruno v. Bruno, 296 Pa. Super. 90, 442 A.2d 3111 (1982)]. 3:293-94.Pending Actions–Superior Court Sets ForthStandards to be Used. [Gordon v. Gordon, 293 Pa.Super. 491, 439 A. 2d 683 (1981); Toll v. Toll,293 Pa. Super. 549, 439 A. 2d 712 (1981); Conradv. Conrad, 293 Pa. Super. 558, 439 A.2d 717(1981); Kaskie v. Kaskie, 295 Pa. Super. 523, 442A.2d 261 (1982)]. 3:246-57.Pennsylvania Court Lacked Subject MatterJurisdiction to Terminate Parental Rights WhenParent Still Resided in State that Issued CustodyOrder. [In re: Adoption of N.M.B. 564 Pa. 117,764 A.2d 1042 (2000)]. Kristen M. Humphrey.23:2-4.Pennsylvania has Jurisdiction to Hear EconomicIssues, Even Though Parties are Divorced in SouthCarolina. [Cheng v. Cheng, 347 Pa. Super. 515,500 A.2d 1175 (1985)]. 7:832-35.Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure–ShouldThey be Applied Rigidly? [Kurtas v. Kurtas, 521Pa. 105, 555 A.2d 804 (1989)]. 10(2):78-79.Pennsylvania Superior Court AbolishesEvidentiary Presumption Relating to Same-SexRelationships in Custody and Affirms the BestInterest Standard. [M.A.T. v. G.S.T., 989 A.2d 11(Pa. Super. 2010)]. Carolyn R. Mirabile. 32:20-21.Pennsylvania Superior Court Applies a StrictStandard for the Showing of Good Cause When aPetition Requests the Opening of AdoptionRecords. [In Re: Adoption of S.B., 979 A.2d 925(Pa. Super. 2009)]. Carla Marino. 31:157-58.Pennsylvania Superior Court Extends ContractualChild Support After Death of Obligor. [In Re:Estate of Johnson, 970 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Jessica F. Moyer. 31:89-91.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Establishes the “NoJustification” Rule to Preclude Incarcerated ParentfromModifying or Terminating Child SupportBased Upon Modification of Child Support.[Yerkes v. Yerkes, 824 A.2d 1169 (Pa. 2003)].Loreen M. Burkett. 26:4-5.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Evaluates Scope ofAppellate Review as Defined by Mumma v.Mumma in Custody Cases. [Robinson v.Robinson, 538 Pa. 52, 645 A.2d 836 (1994)].16(4):2-3.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Examines DueProcess Rights of Accused Child Abuser. [R. v.Com., Department of Public Welfare andMontgomery County Office of Children andYouth, 535 Pa. 440, 636 A.2d 142 (1994)].15(3):11-17.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Overrules theWolf Case. [Buskirk v. Buskirk, 527 Pa. 218, 590A.2d 4 (1991)]. 12(4):2-3.Pennsylvania Supreme Court Throws Out CollegeSupport. [Blue v. Blue, 532 Pa. 521, 661 A.2d 628(1992)]. 13(5):2.Pennsylvania’s Beneficiary Re-DesignationStatute–Does ERISA Preempt? [In Re Estate ofPaul J. Sauers, III, 971 A.2d 1265 (Pa. Super.2009)]. Sarinia M. Feinman. 31:91-92.Pension and Profit Sharing not ExemptfromAttachment for Purposes of SatisfyingFamilial Support Obligations. [Hopkinson v.Hopkinson, 323 Pa. Super. 404, 470 A.2d 981].4:509-12.Pension Attachable for Purpose of EnforcingSupport Order. [Hollman v. Hollman, 515 Pa. 288,528 A.2d 146 (1987)]. 8:1004-5.Pension Benefits as Marital Property. [Miller v.Miller, 395 Pa. Super. 255, 577 A.2d 205 (1990)].11:179-80.43