green
Positive treatment
29.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016
2021
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crawford, S., Aplts. v. Commonwealth
(Id. at 60, ¶ 88.) In light of the above, Appellants allege that the Commonwealth has prevented and continues to prevent municipalities from enacting and enforcing local ordinances via the FPLs while “municipalities, organizations, and individual constituents continue to suffer.” (Id. at 61, ¶¶ 89.) Appellants specifically submit that, but for the FPLs, Philadelphia and other municipalities would enact local gun safety measures, such as “permit-to-purchase” 27 Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 434-35 (Pa. 2016). [J-44-2023] - 22 requirements,28 “one-gun-per-month” purchase li…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS
Importantly, Act 12 also provided that Hospital Assessment revenues could be used for a broad array of 79 Leach, 141 A.3d at 434. 80 Weeks I, 222 A.3d at 729. 81 Id. 82 Id. [J-50-2022] [MO: Todd, C.J.] - 27 public health programs that serve the general population, not just the economically disadvantaged, including programs and initiatives with no direct connection to “the basic necessities of life” for low-income people as a class.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS
In conducting this inquiry, a court determines whether the subjects of a legislative enactment are germane, i.e., whether they “have a nexus to a common unconstitutional under Article III, Section 3); Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 433 (Pa. 2016) (rejecting the proposed subject of “regulations of firearms” or “ability to own a firearm” as unconstitutional). 2 The Majority concludes that the provisions of Act 12 all “fall within the unifying single subject of ‘the provisions of benefits pertaining to the basic necessities of life for low- income individuals.’” Majority O…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FOAC v. City of Hbg, Aplts.
The opinion had been solicited to guide the conduct of the law firm.6 The Ethics Board issued a formal opinion concluding that contributions exceeding Sections 1002(1) and (2)’s limits, “which are received after an election to retire campaign debt, are 3 Act 192 of Nov. 6, 2014, P.L. 2921. 4 Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 435 (Pa. 2016). 5 Philadelphia Code §§ 20-1002(1) & (2) (regarding contribution limits for candidates for City elective office). 6 The Friends of Bob Brady Campaign Committee (“Committee”), a political action committee supporting Robert Brady’s campaign for …
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
FOAC v. City of Hbg, Aplts.
Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 435 (Pa. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS
These include legislation which: abolished the office of jury commissioner and provided for the auction and sale of surplus farm equipment, see Pa. State Ass’n of Jury Comm’rs v. Commonwealth, 619 Pa. 369, 381-82 , 64 A.3d 611, 619 (2013) (rejecting the government’s unifying subject framed as “powers of county commissioners”); established a two-year limitation period for asbestos claims, amended deficiency judgment procedures in the common pleas courts after an execution sale of real property, and made changes to Megan’s Law, see Commonwealth v. Nieman, 624 Pa. 53, 70 , 84 A.3d 603…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS
Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 433 (Pa. 2016).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weeks, J., Aplts. v. DHS
Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426, 433 (Pa. 2016).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington, Aplts. v. Dept. of Pub. Welfare
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
This proposed subject is entirely too expansive as it involves a wide panoply of human service programs established by a multiplicity of statutes not all of which are contained in the Public We|fare Code Additionally, the nursing home assessment program, which was added at the last minute to Act 80, is solely a revenue raising tax to provide medical assistance benefits for individuals in nursing homes and, consequently, is unlike the other provisions of Act 80 which, instead, are focused on such disparate topics as: establishing criteria for custodianship of dependent children authorizing and …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wilson, A.
Criminal trespass is defined in pertinent part as follows: (a) BuHdin'{~S and occupied structures.« (l) A person commits.an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he: (i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge.or surreptitiouslyremains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or (ii) breaks inte any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §. 35031 I In Leach v. Commonwealth, 141 A.3d 426 2016), decided June 20, 20 J 6. the Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Cour…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Cooper, D.
J-S05038-17 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DEVIN THOMAS COOPER, Appellant No. 483 MDA 2016 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence February 23, 2016 in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Criminal Division at No.: CP-21-CR-0001463-2015 BEFORE: BENDER, P.J.E., PANELLA, J., and PLATT, J.* MEMORANDUM BY PLATT, J.: FILED APRIL 13, 2017 Appellant, Devin Thomas Cooper, appeals from the judgment of sentence imposed on February 23, 2016, following his jury conviction of one count each o…
cited
Cited "see"
Repsol Oil & Gas USA, LLC v. PA PUC
See Leach v. Turzai, 118 A.3d 1271 , 1277 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Baden Academy Charter School v. PA Dept. of Ed., The Secretary of Ed., Pedro A. Rivera (In His Official Capacity)
See Leach v. Commonwealth, 118 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016); see also Marshall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 638 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (summary relief may be granted before disposing of outstanding preliminary objections).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arts Academy Charter School v. PA Dept. of Ed., The Secretary of Ed., Pedro A. Rivera (In His Official Capacity), William Penn SD
See Leach v. Commonwealth, 118 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016); see also 28 Marshall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 638 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (summary relief may be granted before disposing of outstanding preliminary objections).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard Allen Prep. Charter School v. PA, Department of Education and Pedro A. Rivera, in his official capacity as Secretary of Education
See Leach v. Commonwealth, 118 A.3d 1271, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff'd, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016); see also Marshall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 256 , 638 A.2d 451 (1994) (summary relief may be granted before disposing of outstanding preliminary objections).
discussed
Cited "see"
KIPP Philadelphia Charter Schools v. PA, Department of Education and Pedro A. Rivera, in his official capacity as Secretary of Education
See Leach v. Commonwealth, 118 A.3d 1271, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff'd, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016); see also Marshall v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 256 , 638 A.2d 451 (1994) (summary relief may be granted before disposing of outstanding preliminary objections).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ziegler, R.
See Leach v. Commonwealth et al., ___ Pa. ___, 141 A.3d 426 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ziegler, R.
See Leach v. Commonwealth et al., ___ Pa. ___, 141 A.3d 426 (2016).
cited
Cited "see"
D.W. Smith and D. Lambrecht v. Gov. Thomas W. Wolf and DHS
See Leach v. Turzai, 118 A.3d 1271 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 141 A.3d 426 (Pa. 2016).
discussed
Cited "see"
Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See generally Leach, 141 A.3d at 429-33 (summarizing our Court’s jurisprudence regarding Article III, Section 3).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
OCIRNE, INC. t/a Provco Partners, L.P. and 10 East Germantown Pike, LLC
v.
NEW TEES CO., L.P. Appeal of Ocirne, Inc. t/a Provco Partners, L.P.
v.
NEW TEES CO., L.P. Appeal of Ocirne, Inc. t/a Provco Partners, L.P.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 25, 2016.
David Joseph Falcone, Esq., David R. Moffitt, Esq., Saul Ewing, LLP, Wayne, for Ocirne, Inc., et al., Kenneth James Fleisher, Esq., Philip Alan Magen, Esq., Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, Schaer & Toddy, P C., Philadelphia, for New Tees Co., L.P.
Wecht.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 25th day qf May, 2016, the appeal is dismissed as having been improvidently granted.
Justice WECHT dissents.