Sutliff v. Sutliff

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Decided 1987-07-09

Cited by 103 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

McDERMOTT, Justice, concurring. To the extent that the plurality holds that it was improper for the custodians to use the children’s UGMA funds to offset the father’s support obligation, I agree. 1 However, because the plurality answers more than asked, I must disagree with other aspects of the opinion. The opinion begins its analysis with the announcement of a…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.