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

CASE DIGESTS BY SUBJECTPARTITIONIs a Partition Action Superseded by a Request forEquitable Distribution?–Not Quite. [Marinello v.Marinello, 354 Pa. Super. 471, 512 A.2d 635 (1986)].7:873-877Partition Action is Being Held to be Superseded byEquitable Distribution Provisions of the Divorce Code.[Pietsch v. Pietsch, Lancaster Co., Law, Equity No. 21(1981)]. 2:196.Partition is not Pre-Empted by Equitable DistributionNor does it Defeat Claims for Ancillary Relief Underthe Divorce Code of 1980. [Daniels v. Daniels, 73Berks Co. L.J. 319 (1981). 2:194-96.Partition Pre-Empted by the Divorce Code. [Ferri v.Ferri, 1 A.C.D.D. 122 (Allegh. Co., 1981)]. 2:229-30,232.Pursuant to Rules, All Co-Tenants Must be Joined inPartition Action Between Former Spouses. [Lohmillerv. Weidenbaugh, 503 Pa. 329, 469 A.2d 578 (1983)].5:569-71.Recent Partition Decisions Which Should be Noted byPennsylvania Family Law Practitioners. [Vento v.Vento, 256 Pa. Super. 91, 389 A.2d 615 (1978);Damirgian v. Damirgian, 262 Pa. Super. 463, 396 A.2d1263 (1978); Morris v. Morris, 104 Montg. Co. L. Rep.254 (1978); Fascione v. Fascione, 272 Pa. Super. 530,416 A.2d 1023 (1979); Gray v. Gray, 275 Pa. Super.131, 418 A.2d 646 (1980)]. 1:22-32.Specific Enforcement of Agreement. [Marcolongo v.Nicolai, 392 Pa. Super. 208, 572 A.2d 765 (1990)].11:163-64.Spouses may not Benefit by Their Own Wrongdoing.[Meno v. Meno, 18 D.&C.3d 250 (Washington Co.1981)]. 2:131.Subsequent Filed Divorce Action with Claim forEquitable Distribution does not Preempt or SupersedePrior Filed Partition Action. [Goldstein v. Goldstein,354 Pa. Super. 490, 512 A.2d 644 (1986)]. 7:868-73 .Vento is Dead!!!! [Platek v. Platek, 309 Pa. Super. 16,454 A.2d 1059 (1982)]. 4:389-90.PATERNITYBlood Tests Ordered Only When Paternity is a RelevantIssue. [Wachter v. Ascero, 379 Pa. Super. 618, 550A.2d 1019 (1988)]. 10:67.Doctrine of Paternity by Estoppel Examined. [In theMatter of Green v. McCoy, 437 Pa. Super. 606, 577A.2d 1341 (1994)]. 17(1):2-3.Doctrine of Presumption of Paternity is Alive but notKicking . [Miscovich v. Miscovich, 455 Pa. Super. 437,688 A.2d 726 (1997); Ruth F. v. Robert B., Jr. (Listedas Fish v. Behers)], 456 Pa. Super. 398, 690 A.2d 1171(1997)]. Dagmar W. Wolf. 19:27-29.No Third Blood Test Permitted: Paternity. [Deangelo v.Murray, 536 Pa. 206, 638 A.2d 966 (1994)]. 15(2):3-4.Once Jurisdiction Attaches, a Court Should Dispose ofAll Issues and Questions Relating to the Matter BeforeIt. [In Re: I.L.P. and I.L.P., Joint Petition on AssistedConception Birth Registration; Appeal of: C.-H.L. andT.J.P., G.S. and B.S., 965 A.2d. 251 (Pa. Super. 2009)].John P. Attiani. 31:99-100.Paternity and Visitation: Separate and Distinct Issues.[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 be TooLate! [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.2d 534(Pa. 2003)]. Loreen M. Burkett. 25:63-65.Paternity Case: Constitutional Right to Counsel.[Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 410 Pa. Super. 549, 600 A.2d589 (1991)]. 13(1):4-5.Paternity Issue Revisited. [Sanders v. Sanders, 384 Pa.Super. 311, 558 A.2d 556 (1989)]. 10:94.Paternity: Recent Opinions by the Superior Court.89