green
Positive treatment
19.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kardos, J. v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc.
Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 376 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 645 , 781 A.2d 145 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kardos, J. v. Armstrong Pumps, Inc.
Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 376 (Pa.Super. 2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 645 , 781 A.2d 145 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Maya v. Johnson & Johnson
Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 377 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 645 , 781 A.2d 145 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC
Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000) (approving the opinion that “each exposure to asbestos ... before the latency period ... has ... been a substantial, contributing cause”). 27 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harris v. NGK North American, Inc.
Where the symptom of shortness of breath is causally related to a diagnosis of asbestos, a com-pensable injury does in fact exist.” See also Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 374 (Pa.Super.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC
Betz also relies on asbestos-disease related cases from this Court in which we found admissible the opinions of expert witnesses that "[e]ach and every breath of asbestos fibers is [a] significant and substantial contributing factor to the [plaintiff's] asbestos related disease.” Smalls v. Pittsburgh-Corning, 843 A.2d 410, 414 (Pa.Super.2004); Cauthorn v. Owens Corning Fiberglas Corp., 840 A.2d 1028, 1038-39 (Pa.Super.2004); Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregg v. V-J Auto Parts Co.
LEXIS 2347, [slip op.] at 5 (citing Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 2000 PA Super 203 , 757 A.2d 367, 376 (Pa.Super.2000), and Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 1999 PA Super 82 , 729 A.2d 614, 623 (Pa.Super.1999)). *1176 Like the common pleas court, Judge Bowes observed that the much of the testimony proffered by Appellee pertaining to frequency, regularity, and proximity was vague and generalized.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wright v. Allied Signal, Inc.
(2×)
Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 652 ; Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weible v. Allied Signal, Inc.
(2×)
Gutteridge, 804 A.2d at 652 ; Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
McNeal v. Eaton Corp.
(3×)
Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 2000 PA Super 203 , 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 645 , 781 A.2d 145 (2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gutteridge v. A.P. Green Services, Inc.
Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal denied, 566 Pa. 645 , 781 A.2d 145 (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thorpe v. Gant
DISCUSSION A. The Trial Court Properly Denied Gant’s Motion for Judgment n.o.v. and Entered Judgment on the Jury’s Verdict In reviewing a denial of a motion for judgment n.o.v. “[a]n appellate court must decide whether or not there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.” Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 372 (Pa. Super. 2000).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Stecher v. Ford Motor Co.
(2×)
Co., 757 A.2d 367, 374 (Pa.Super.2000); (internal quotation and citation omitted). ¶ 31 Upon careful and independent review of the trial transcripts, I find no abuse of discretion with respect to the denial of these motions.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregg v. VJ Auto Parts, Inc.
(2×)
See id. at 5 (citing Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 376 (Pa.Super.2000), and Coward v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 729 A.2d 614, 623 (Pa.Super.1999)).
cited
Cited "see"
Pennsylvanians Against Gambling Expansion Fund, Inc. v. Commonwealth
See Common Cause v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 *317 (2000).
examined
Cited "see"
Quate v. American Standard, Inc.
(3×)
See Lonaseo v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 372 (Pa.Super.2000).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pennsylvania School Boards Ass'n v. Commonwealth Ass'n of School Administrators
See Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 112 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (holding that although parties have not stipulated to the facts relating to the enactment of a statute, the court can take judicial notice of legislative journals and various versions of the bill ultimately enacted), af f'd per curiam, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000); League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 692 A.2d 263, 263 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 691 A.2d 1023 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), aff'd, 563 Pa. 108 , 757 A.2d 917 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO v. Commonwealth, 683 A…
discussed
Cited "see"
Harrisburg School District v. Hickok
(2×)
See Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 118 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff' d, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000); Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, 691 A.2d at 1033 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sernovitz v. Dershaw
In more recent years, however, the Court observed extreme deference to the Legislature, validating bills under the single-subject test that included a range of topics, as long as they could “reasonably be viewed as falling under one broad subject.” City of Philadelphia, 575 Pa. at 576 , 838 A.2d at 587 ; see, e.g., Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (per cu-riam ) (affirming the decision of the Commonwealth Court upholding a bill amending Title 75 (the Vehicle Code) and Title 74 (relating to transportation) as relating to a single subject, vehicula…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Donoughe v. Lincoln Electric Co.
See, e.g., Lonasco v. A-Best Products Co., 757 A.2d 367, 375 (Pa.Super.2000) (discussing Dr. Epstein’s testimony in a 1995-1996 asbestos trial before a Philadelphia common pleas court). ¶ 39 Undoubtedly for this reason, the record in the case sub judice shows that Lincoln and Hobart were fully prepared to cross-examine Dr. Epstein on his Phase II testimony and did so in an expert manner.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stilp v. Commonwealth
(2×)
See, e.g., Common Cause/Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 710 A.2d 108, 116 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd per curiam, 562 Pa. 632 , 757 A.2d 367 (2000) (“Based upon the above five factors [for taxpayer standing outlined in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158 , 507 A.2d 323 (1986) ], we conclude that the circumstances of the present case warrant the granting of standing to petitioners.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMON CAUSE/PENNSYLVANIA and Citizens Against New Toll Roads and Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund and Zero Population Growth, Inc., Appellants (At 61/98),
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Ridge, Governor and Robert A. Judge, Sr., Secretary of Revenue and Bradley L. Mallory, Secretary of Transportation, Appellees. Senator Robert C. Jubelirer and Representative Matthew J. Ryan, Intervenors (Appeal of At 63/98).
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and Thomas J. Ridge, Governor and Robert A. Judge, Sr., Secretary of Revenue and Bradley L. Mallory, Secretary of Transportation, Appellees. Senator Robert C. Jubelirer and Representative Matthew J. Ryan, Intervenors (Appeal of At 63/98).
Per Curiam.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
AND NOW, this 30 th day of August, 2000 the Order of the Commonwealth Court is hereby affirmed. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, et al. v. Commonwealth et al., ___ Pa. ___, 757 A.2d 917 (1998).