TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Commonwealth ex rel. Balick v. Balick

Commonwealth ex rel. Balick v. Balick, 92 A.2d 703 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 2, 1952
Docket
Nos. , No. 104
Judges
Arnold, Dithrich, Gunther, Hirt, Reno, Rhodes, Ross
Citations
92 A.2d 703172 Pa. Super. 1961952 Pa. Super. LEXIS 474
Cited by 15

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam,

Respondent, the mother of two children — a girl born May 18, 1943, and a boy born April —, 1945— has appealed from an order of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia awarding the custody of the children to the relator, their father, who resides and has his place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. He was permitted to take the children out of the State upon the furnishing of bond in the sum of $500. Respondent resides with her parents in Philadelphia. The parties have been separated since 1947.

The order of the court below is based on the report of a court-appointed psychiatrist, by whom both parties agreed to be examined. But nowhere does it appear, as contended by appellee, that they agreed that the report should be incorporated into the record or that the decision of the court, which was reserved pending the examination, should be based on the report without further hearing.

The case is ruled squarely by Commonwealth ex rel. Oncay v. Oncay, 153 Pa. Superior Ct. 569 , 34 A. 2d 839 , a child custody case. In reversing the court below, which incidentally was the same court as here, except that there was a different hearing judge, this Court said (p. 570) : “We must point out again . . . that reports of investigators, agents, and doctors cannot be received in evidence, or considered by the court, in a contested case. See Com. ex rel. Ritter v. Ritter, 91 Pa. Superior Ct. 563, 565 ; Com. v. Varner, 103 Pa. Superior Ct. 149, 153 , 156 A. 545 ; Com. ex rel. Mark v. Mark, 115 Pa. Superior Ct. 181, 183 , 175 A. 289 ; Com. ex rel. McClenen v. McClenen, 127 Pa. Superior Ct. 471, 476 , 193 A. 83 ; Com. ex rel. Knode v. Knode, 145 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 4 , 20 A. 2d 896 . The investigators, agents, doctors, etc., must themselves be produced, sivorn and examined as Avitnesses and be sub *198 ject to cross-examination, just as all other witnesses. We thought we had already made this sufficiently clear, but, nevertheless, our ruling was not followed here.”

The order is reversed, and the record is remanded to the court below for further hearing in accordance with this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1954: 31956: 11958: 21961: 21963: 11974: 11976: 11977: 21981: 11991: 119542026peak 1954 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In the Interest of LaRue366 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)
  2. Holmes' Appeal109 A.2d 523 (Pa. 1954)
  3. In Interest of Jones429 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
  4. Wood v. TUCKER332 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)
  5. Jones v. Trojak586 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)
  6. Commonwealth ex rel. Kuntz v. Stackhouse108 A.2d 73 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1954)

Most recent

  1. Jones v. Trojak586 A.2d 397 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991)
  2. In Interest of Jones429 A.2d 671 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981)
  3. In re Hill375 A.2d 165 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)
  4. Commonwealth ex rel. Valentine v. Strongel371 A.2d 931 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977)
  5. In the Interest of LaRue366 A.2d 1271 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1976)
  6. Wood v. TUCKER332 A.2d 191 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Commonwealth ex rel. McClenen v. McClenen, 193 A. 83 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1937) 29
Commonwealth ex rel. Oncay v. Oncay, 34 A.2d 839 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1943) 25
Commonwealth ex rel. Knode v. Knode, 20 A.2d 896 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1941) 15
Com. ex rel. Mark v. Mark, 175 A. 289 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1934) 12
Commonwealth v. Varner, 156 A. 545 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1931) 5
Commonwealth ex rel. Ritter v. Ritter, 91 Pa. Super. 563 (1927) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list