green
Positive treatment
8.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allegheny Clinic v. Conde-Colon, Z.
This requirement mandates that the plaintiff provide proof that the defendant’s actions were improper.” Foster v. ____________________________________________ 8 For purposes of our disposition, we focus on the second and third elements of this cause of action. - 19 - J-A05026-25 UPMC S. Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655, 666 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 647 , 12 A.3d at 371 (2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Eastern Steel Const. v. International Fidelity
See Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083 , 1088 n. 1 (Pa. Super. 2010) (noting that decisions of the Commonwealth Court may provide persuasive authority and that “we may turn to our colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.”), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2010). 41 As more fully explained below, under Pennsylvania law, a contract that guarantees the debt of another is a suretyship agreement when the creditor is entitled to seek payment directly from the guarantor/surety without being required to first seek payment from the principal debtor.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eastern Steel Const. v. International Fidelity
See Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083 , 1088 n. 1 (Pa. Super. 2010) (noting that decisions of the Commonwealth Court may provide persuasive authority and that “we may turn to our colleagues on the Commonwealth Court for guidance when appropriate.”), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2010). 41 As more fully explained below, under Pennsylvania law, a contract that guarantees the debt of another is a suretyship agreement when the creditor is entitled to seek payment directly from the guarantor/surety without being required to first seek payment from the principal debtor.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Magee
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Reading Group, ____________________________________________ 8 See, e.g., Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083 , 1089 n.1 (Pa. Super.), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2010). - 11 - J-S34030-17 922 A.2d at 1033 (implicitly finding that second collateral order requirement had been met).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lawrence, H. v. Robland International
See Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083 , 1089 n.1 (Pa. Super. 2010), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 371 (Pa. 2010). - 11 - J-A17038-17 conclude Appellants have waived their claim pertaining to specific personal jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Highway Equipment v. Pro Pipeline Solutions
See also Petow v. Warehime, 996 A.2d 1083 , 1089 n.1 (Pa.Super. 2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 648 , 12 A.3d 371 (2010) (stating: “This Court is not bound by decisions of the Commonwealth Court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN RE I.M.K. IN RE V.A.
129 MAL (2010).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 15, 2010.
12 A.3d 371
Published
Disposition of Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied.