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

CASE DIGESTS BY TITLE386 A. 2d 129 (1978); Com. ex rel. Stein v. Stein,487 Pa. 1, 406 A.2d 1381 (1979)]. 1:14-19.Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Wenz v.Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. (1979), cert.den'd 100 S.Ct. 1015 (1980); Zaubi v. Zaubi,Appeal of Hojme, 530 Pa. 831, 423 A.2d 373(1980); Havice v. Havice, 15 D.&C.3d 450(Snyder Co. 1980); J.C.S. v. D.M.S. and D.D., 227Pa. Super. 612, 419 A.2d 1319 (1980)]. 1:46-57Recent UCCJA Decisions Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Warmanv. Warman, 294 Pa. Super. 285, 439 A.2d 1203(1982); Hattoum v. Hattoum, 295 Pa. Super. 169,441 A. 2d 403 (1982); Melzer v. Witsberger, 299Pa. Super. 153, 445 A.2d 499 3 (1982)]. 3:278-87.Regular Visits do not Defeat Separate and ApartClaim Where Parties Reside in SeparateResidence. [Taylor v. Taylor, 1 A.C.D.D. 82(Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:202-5.Religious Restriction in Custody Order StruckDown. [Zummo v. Zummo, 394 Pa. Super. 30, 574A.2d 1130 (1990)]. Emanuel A. Bertin. 11:143.Relocation: Gruber is Alive and Well. [Gancas v.Schultz, 453 Pa. Super. 324, 683 A.2d 1207(1996)]. David L. Ladov. 19:8-10.Replevin Action Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code.[Kramer v. Kramer, 110 Montg. Co. L.R. 135(1982)]. 3:338-39.Restriction on Lesbian Mother's Visitation onConflicting Testimony of Child and Experts isAbuse of Discretion, Panel Declares. [Blew v.Verta, 420 Pa. Super. 528, 617 A.2d 31 (1992)].14(2):12-13.Results Oriented Fee Agreement. [Eckell v.Wilson, 409 Pa. Super. 132, 597 A.2d 696(1991)].12(6):2-3.Retroactive Application of Support Order Denied.[Hainaut v. Hainaut, 410 Pa. Super. 316, 599 A.2d1009 (1991)]. 13(1):6-7.Retroactive Suspension of a Support OrderWithout Modification Petition. [Calloway v.Calloway, 406 Pa. Super. 454, 594 A.2d 708(1991)]. 12(6):5-6.Retroactivity of APL and Child Support OrdersPrior to Filing is Gaining Momentum: Standard ofReview on Appeal Heightening. [Simmons v.Simmons, 723 A.2d 221 (Pa. Super.)]. Rochelle B.Grossman. 21:37-38.Reunification vs. Adoption –Whose Interests areReally Served? [In the Interest of R.J.T., Minor;Appeal of: Allegheny County Office of Children,Youth and Families. In Re R.J.T., 990 A.2d 777(Pa. Super. 2010)]. Sarah N. Ponzio. 32:72-75.Review by Pennsylvania Supreme Court ofEquitable Distribution Order. [Cooper v. Cooper,8 W.D. 1992 (March 11, 1994)]. 15(2):2-3.Right of Privacy v. Paternity Test: Are They inConflict? [John M. v. Paula T., 377 Pa. Super. 72,546 A.2d 1162 (1988)]. 9(5):47-49.Right to De Novo Trial in Custody Proceeding.[Ashford v. Ashford, 395 Pa. Super. 125, 576A.2d 1076 (1990)]11:157-58.Role of Trusts Under UGMA in Support Actions.[Sutliff v. Sutliff, 339 Pa. Super. 523, 489 A.2d764 (1985)]. 6:705-13.Role Reversal: Wife Supports Husband.[McWilliams v. McWilliams, 370 Pa. Super. 595,537 A.2d 35 (1988)]. 9:23.Rule 1910.16-4(E) Spousal Support CalculationsWhen Obligor is the Primary Custodian. [Diamentv. Diament, 816 A.2d 256 (Pa Super.2003)].Gerald L. Shoemaker, Jr. 25:73-76.Rule 1910.19(f) Permits Suspension of SupportOrder and Remission of Arrears When There isNo Reasonable Prospect of Recovery. SophiaPaige Paul. 31:13-14.Rule 1910.23: not a Tool to Change a SupportOrder. [O'Neill v. Gioffre, 384 Pa. Super. 579, 559A.2d 588 (1989)]. 10(4):103-4.48