Est. of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC, 19 A.3d 1051 (Pa. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Est. of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC, 19 A.3d 1051 (Pa. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events (44 in the last 25 years) across 6 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Gates, M. v. Green Real Estate Investments (pasuperct, 2015-10-14)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Gates, M. v. Green Real Estate Investments
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC, 984 A.2d 943, 976 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc), appeal denied, 19 A.3d 1051 (Pa. 2011) (“In order to preserve issues for appellate review a party must file post-trial motions from a trial court’s decision and order following the conclusion of a trial.
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Martin, K.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Williams, R., 2 A.3d 611 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 585 , 19 A.3d 1051 (2011) (holding probable cause to arrest is made out when facts and circumstances within knowledge of officer at time of arrest are sufficient to warrant person of reasonable caution in belief that suspect has committed crime).
discussed Cited "see" O'Brien, T. v. Dela Pena, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Estate of Hicks v. Dana Companies, LLC, 984 A.2d 943 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 586 , 19 A.3d 1051 (2011) (explaining where party fails to (Footnote Continued Next Page) -8- J-A28013-14 supported defense under sudden emergency doctrine, where Mr. Dela Pena faced sudden emergency, Mr. Dela Pena did not create that emergency, and Mr. Dela Pena acted reasonably under circumstances; jury found Mr. Dela Pena’s testimony complete and credible, and rejected Appellant’s theory that Mr. Dela Pena either created sudden emergency or did not respond reasonably to it; jury�…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Centimark Corp. v. Grand Essex LLC
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2026 · signal: see also · confidence low
Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (stating, “[i]ssues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal”); see also Est. of Hicks v. Dana Cos., LLC, 984 A.2d 943, 976 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating, “[e]ven when a litigant files post-trial motions but fails to raise a certain issue, that issue is deemed waived for purposes of appellate review”), appeal denied, 19 A.3d 1051 (Pa. 2011); Steiner v. Markel, 968 A.2d 1253, 1256 (Pa. 2009) (stating, “an appellate court cannot reverse a trial court judgment on a basis that was not properly raised and preserved by the par…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Enyeart, R.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2022 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 A.3d 611 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 585 , 19 A.3d 1051 (2011) (explaining that inevitable discovery doctrine permits introduction of evidence that inevitably would have been discovered through lawful means).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Com. v. Rodriguez, D.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2014 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 2 A.3d 611, 621 (Pa.Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 610 Pa. 585 , 19 A.3d 1051 (2011) (holding any applicable taint to physical evidence seized stemming - 10 - J-A17004-14 from warrantless seizure of vehicle was purged by securing search warrant and canine sniff that were not premised upon facts obtained as result of warrantless seizure of vehicle).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ESTATE OF HICKS
v.
DANA COMPANIES, LLC; IN RE JOHN CRANE, INC.[1]
751, 752 EAL (2009).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 18, 2011.
19 A.3d 1051
Published

Disposition of Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied.

1 Justice ORIE MELVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.