green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
39.3 score
“authorizes action by those state courts that already have subject matter jurisdiction and substantive law authority under pertinent state law. . . . e conclude, therefore, that section 1408(c)(4) refers to personal jurisdiction.”
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
In the Interest of: G.G.B., Appeal of: J.B.
a party may insist that the right be observed or he may waive it.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sippel Development v. Charter Homes
it is well-settled that a party may either expressly or impliedly consent to a court's personal jurisdiction
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Fox v. Fox.
authorizes action by those state courts that already have subject matter jurisdiction and substantive law authority under pertinent state law. . . . e conclude, therefore, that section 1408(c)(4) refers to personal jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
T.L.C. v. D.F.H.
Instantly, we first address whether Father preserved his affirmative defense related to the absence of personal jurisdiction. “[U]nder the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, an objection to personal jurisdiction - 13 - J-A02030-26 may be waived, if preliminary objections to a complaint raising the issue are not filed within twenty days after service.” Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001); Silver v. Thompson, 26 A.3d 514 , 517 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“A party who fails to object to service of process in preliminary objections waives that claim.”); see also Pa.R.C.P. 1032(…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ripka, J. v. Gramm, B. & Fisher Auto Parts
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See, e.g., Ferraro, 313 A.3d at 991 n.2, 999 (overlooking the defendant’s failure to raise his challenge to service by preliminary objection, but indicating that “[v]alidity of service is essential, and failure to perfect service is fatal to a lawsuit”); Wagner, 768 A.2d at 1120 (reviewing the merits of the husband’s challenge to the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over him, although he raised the issue more than two years after - 14 - J-A07035-25 he was served with the complaint rather than by promptly filing preliminary objections, where the circumstances of the case rendered a…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Estate of Klingensmith, J.
In other words, a party may affirmatively state his consent or take such steps or seek such relief that manifest his submission to the court’s jurisdiction over his person.” Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1120 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of: L.E.K., Appeal of: L.E.K.
Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rubiela Williams v. Ennis Williams
Instead, it usurped state long-arm statutes and provided in § 1408(c)(4)(A)-(C) its own tests of personal jurisdiction that all state courts must apply." Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1117 (Pa. 2001). "[Section] 1408(c)(4) prohibits state courts from exercising authority to determine the status of a military member's pension unless the court, as of the commencement of the action, has personal jurisdiction over the member by virtue of residence (other than because of military assignment), domicile, or consent." In re Marriage of Akins, 932 P.2d 863, 867 (Colo. App. 1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jacoby, H. v. Jacoby, R.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (stating that the “requirement of personal jurisdiction flows from the Due Process Clause and restricts judicial power as a matter of individual right.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
N. W. v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1115 (Pa. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hammons, P. v. Ethicon, Inc., Aplts.
Pa.R.C.P. 1032 (regarding waiver of defenses and objections not presented either by preliminary objection, answer or reply); Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (stating that failure to file a timely objection to personal jurisdiction constitutes waiver of the objection).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lukaszonas, P. v. Harris, P.
Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lawrence, H. v. Robland International
Games Int’l, Inc. v. Com., 66 A.3d 740 , 756 n.24 (Pa. 2013) (citing Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001)); Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Szymanski, 936 A.2d 87, 103 (Pa. Super. 2007), appeal denied, 956 A.2d 435 (Pa. 2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1104 (2009); see also Tracy v. Unemployment Comp.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Johnson v. Johnson
(3×)
Matter of Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734, 739 (Colo. 1992) (emphasis added). ¶ 11 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has stated that, “in keeping with the federal policy to keep federal intrusion into the area of domestic relations at a minimum, the Act controls the authority thaj> state family law courts have over a single item, military retirement pay.” Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1118 (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Marriage of Robinson
In re Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734 , 738 n.9 (Colo. 1992); Petters v. Petters, 560 So. 2d 722, 725 (Miss. 1990); Davis v. Davis, 284 P.3d 23, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012); Sparks v. Caldwell, 723 P.2d 244, 245 (N.M. 1986); Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1118 (Pa. 2001); Pender v. Pender, 945 S.W.2d 395, 396-97 (Ark.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Marriage of Robinson
In re Marriage of Booker, 833 P.2d 734 , 738 n.9 (Colo. 1992); Petters v. Petters, 560 So. 2d 722, 725 (Miss. 1990); Davis v. Davis, 284 P.3d 23, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012); Sparks v. Caldwell, 723 P.2d -8- No. 1-13-2345 244, 245 (N.M. 1986); Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1118 (Pa. 2001); Pender v. Pender, 945 S.W.2d 395, 396-97 (Ark.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Borough of Gettysburg v. Teamsters Local No. 776
Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (2001); Tracy v. Unemployment Comp.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Scientific Games International, Inc. v. Commonwealth
Corp. v. Cnty. of Durham, 143 N.C.App. 97 , 545 S.E.2d 243, 245-46 (2001); cf. Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 480 (4th Cir.2005) (observing that federal sovereign immunity "has attributes of both subject-matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction”), albeit that the ordinary strain of personal jurisdiction may be waived in the course of litigation, see Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448, 461 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (2001). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Haddad v. Gopal
Such consent also serves as an affirmative defense to an action for breach of physician-patient confidentiality. ¶ 8 This Commonwealth recognizes implied consent for jurisdiction, Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1115 (2001); motor vehicle operator’s test for chemical substances, Commonwealth v. Shaw, 564 Pa. 617 , 770 A.2d 295, 298 (2001); contributory negligence, Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 563 Pa. 501 , 762 A.2d 339, 342 (2000); severance of an estate, Fazekas v. Fazekas, 737 A.2d 1262, 1264 (Pa.Super.1999); limited investigatory search, Commonwealth v. Witman, 750 …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McCullough v. Clark
Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1120 (2001) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
M.G. v. B.S.
See Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (stating “the failure to file a timely objection to personal jurisdiction constitutes, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and comparable state rules, a waiver of the objection.”) (citation omitted). -7- J-A09009-25 Having determined that the UCCJEA applies to this matter, we turn to our standard of review.
discussed
Cited "see"
City of Philadelphia v. Zig Zag, LLC v. RNG Realty, LLC ~ Appeal of: Zig Zag, LLC
See Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (explaining personal jurisdiction is a personal right waivable by a party). 10 such that “the [T]rial [C]ourt had no recourse but to accept the allegations of the [Sale] [P]etition as true,” City’s Br. at 25, disregards clear precedent holding the opposite.
discussed
Cited "see"
Suffolk Constr. v. Reliance Ins. Apl of: Suffolk
See Wagner v. Wagner, 768 A.2d 1112, 1119 (Pa. 2001) (finding the failure to object to personal jurisdiction results in waiver); see also Morgan v. Hartford Hosp., 21 A.3d 451, 458 (Conn. 2011) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pennsylvania Medical Society Liability Ins. v. Commonwealth
See 40 P.S. § 1303.712(d). [7] Our review of the legal issues involved is plenary, see Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 455 n. 2, 768 A.2d 1112 , 1116 n. 2 (2001); however, we agree with the MCARE Fund that its interpretation is entitled to deference in our assessment.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Judge
See generally Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112, 1120 (2001) (stating that “[i]t is well-settled that a party may either expressly or impliedly consent to a court’s personal jurisdiction”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Huntington National Bank v. K-Cor, Inc.
The purpose of the requirement that a party raise all objections at one time is “to reduce the number of dilatory steps [available to a party] ... and thus expedite the reasonable disposition of the litigation.” Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co., 409 Pa. 338 , 186 A.2d 396, 398 (1962); see also Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112 , 1120 n. 3 (2001); Bowman v. Meadow Ridge, Inc., 419 Pa.Super. 511 , 615 A.2d 755, 757 (1992).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davis v. Davis
Compare, e.g., Seeley v. Seeley, 690 S.W.2d 626, 627-28 (Tex.App. 1985) (husband consented to jurisdiction under the FSPA because he allowed the divorce trial to proceed on the merits without first obtaining a ruling on his special appearance motion), and In re Marriage of Parks, 48 Wash. App. 166 , 737 P.2d 1316, 1318-19 (1987) (seeking affirmative relief in original dissolution proceeding constitutes implied consent), with Tarvin v. Tarvin, 187 Cal.App.3d 56 , 232 Cal.Rptr. 13, 15-16 (App.1986) (California courts do not have continuing jurisdiction to apportion military retirement pay based …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Armbruster v. Horowitz
(2×)
See, e.g., Wagner v. Wagner, 564 Pa. 448 , 768 A.2d 1112 , 1116 n. 2 (2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Joseph CARR, Appellee
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant
Direct appeal 34 MAP 2000.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 11, 2001.
Lead Opinion
[*448] ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2001, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County reinstating appellee’s driving privileges on the basis that 75 Pa.C.S. § 1584 is unconstitutional is hereby REVERSED, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this Court’s decisions in Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000), and Harrington v. Commonwealth, 563 Pa. 565, 763 A.2d 386 (2000).
Justice CAPPY files a concurring statement.Concurrence
CAPPY, Justice,
concurring.
The reasons the court of common pleas gave in its corrected memorandum opinion in support of its decision to sustain appellee’s statutory appeal from the suspension of his operating privileges are identical to the reasons the court gave in its memorandum opinion in Crooks v. Commonwealth, Dep’t. of Transp., No. 70 MAP 2000, 2001 WL 359021 (filed April 11, 2001). I, therefore, join the per curiam reversal and remand for the reasons set forth more fully in my concurring and dissenting opinion in Crooks.