green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
54.3 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2020–2022 ·
…dministrators of estates are charged with taking possession of, maintaining, and administering , see 20 pa.c.s. 3311(a), and the orphans' courts are vested with the authority to ensure the proper distribution
at p. 1249
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 31 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Estate of Richard L. Michael
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
dministrators of estates are charged with taking possession of, maintaining, and administering , see 20 pa.c.s. 3311(a), and the orphans' courts are vested with the authority to ensure the proper distribution
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
SER Navient Solutions, LLC v. Honorable Ronald E. Wilson, Judge and Rebecca L. Brogan-Johnson
issues of preemption comprise pure questions of law
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Est. of Harmon, S.A. v. Harmon, B.L.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
dministrators of estates are charged with taking possession of, maintaining, and administering , see 20 pa.c.s. 3311(a), and the orphans' courts are vested with the authority to ensure the proper distribution
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Estate of Coyne, B.
In addition, the orphans’ court “must also adjudicate disputes concerning the title and rightful possession of a decedent’s property.” In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
T. Walker v. Mifflin County D.A.'s Office
In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248-49 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Allstate Life Insurance Co v. Gregory McKean
A life insurance policy is personal property, In re Est. of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (Pa. 2011), so the executor argues the guardian had the power to surrender the policy. 4 But Pennsylvania law instructs that “[a] conflict between various statutes or parts thereof is to be avoided and, if possible, the apparently conflicting provisions must be construed together with the more specific provisions prevailing over the general ones.” Hous.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor, M. v. Pepper, J.
See 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (a) (providing that ERISA applies notwithstanding “any and all” state laws that relate to any employee benefit plan); see also Kennedy v. Plan Administrator For Dupont Savings & Investment Plan, 555 U.S. 285, 302-04 (2009) (holding that ERISA preempts state laws revoking the designation of the ex-spouse as plan beneficiary on divorce, and that, if ERISA governs the 401(k) or other retirement plan, the ex-spouse will have the right to the plan proceeds); In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1246, 1257 (Pa. 2011) (holding that ERISA preempts state law purporting to rev…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. MCKEAN
In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186, 199 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Iron & Steel Realty Investments, LLC v. Westmoreland County TCB ~ Appeal of: Hoberman Homes, LLC
Generally, “capacity to sue refers to the legal ability of a person to come into court, and ‘[w]ant of capacity to sue has reference to or involves only a general legal disability, . . . such as infancy, lunacy, idiocy, coverture, want of authority, or a want of title in plaintiff in the character in which he or she sues.’” In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248 (Pa. 2011) (quoting 67A C.J.S.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hudson v. COLUMBIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
Nevertheless, Pennsylvania courts have recognized that “life insurance policies from which proceeds are distributed are the decedent’s personal property at the time of his death.” In Re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (Pa. 2011) (citing In Re Henderson’s Estate, 149 A.2d 892 (Pa. 1959); In Re Shahan , 631 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Super.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Estate of Kevin Swain
Erie Co. 1967), and In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (Pa. 2011) support her argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nowicki, F. v. Righter, K.
Indeed, this Court has previously referred to the blurry distinction between capacity to sue and standing as a “somewhat metaphysical question.” In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248-49 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted) (some formatting altered) (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nowicki, F. v. Righter, K.
Indeed, this Court has previously referred to the blurry distinction between capacity to sue and standing as a “somewhat metaphysical question.” In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248-49 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted) (some formatting altered) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
The Bank of New York Mellon v. Washington, G.
The “capacity to sue refers to the legal ability of a person to come into court.” In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Liane McDonald v. Wells Fargo Bank NA
As it did when analyzing 6 32 A.3d 1241 (Pa. 2011). 7 Id. at 1249. 8 Riner v. Riner, 31 A. 347, 348 (Pa. 1895) (citation omitted). 9 Id. 5 Pennsylvania law, the District Court considered Ohio’s “Survival of actions” statute, Ohio Rev.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Re: Trust Under Deed of D. Kulig Apl of Budke, C.
It is the “effectively disposed of . . . otherwise” in Subsection 2101(a)’s definition of the intestate estate that Children argue excludes revocable trusts from the intestate estate: Assets that pass outside a decedent’s probate estate, such as by the terms of a funded inter vivos trust (whether revocable or irrevocable), by operation of law (e.g., jointly owned assets, “payable on death” accounts, “in trust for” accounts) or by beneficiary designation (e.g., life insurance, IRAs), are not subject to the intestacy statutes because such assets are “effectively disposed of . .…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Swackhammer, D. Appeal of: Swackhammer,R
In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248-49 (Pa. 2011) (emphasis omitted). -5- J-A29021-16 Swackhammer also contends that the trial court erred in finding he did not have a substantial interest in the matter and erred in finding he lacked standing.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Celec v. Edinboro University
Opp. at P. 15 (citing In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (2011), for the proposition that life insurance policies are recognized in Pennsylvania as personal property of the decedent).) Notably, however, there is no allegation that the Cigna policy itself caused Plaintiffs harm; rather, the source of Plaintiffs injury was the allegedly negligent conduct of Harrison.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of: Gallagher, S. Appeal of: Hallman, J.
“Under ERISA, plan administrators and fiduciaries are required ‘to discharge [their] duties with respect to a plan solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries,… in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan….’” In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186, 205 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1253 (2011) (quoting 29 U.S.C.A. § 1104 (a)(1)(D)) (emphasis in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Gentry v. Diamond Rock Hill Realty, LLC
The orphans’ court “must also adjudicate disputes concerning the title and rightful possession of a decedent’s property.” In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1249 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Reglan Litigation
“Issues of preemption comprise pure questions of law, of which the standard of review is de novo and the scope of review plenary.” In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1248 (2011) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Ruspi v. Glatz
In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241, 1248, 1249-50 (2011) (quotation marks in original).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Eastern Roofing Systems, Inc. v. Cestone
In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1247-48 (2011).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lilac Meadows, Inc. v. Rivello
Preliminary objections seeking the dismissal of a claim may be sustained only in cases that are clear and free from doubt, In re Estate of Savers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1247-48 (Pa. 2011), and to be clear and free from doubt, it must appear with certainty that the law would not permit recovery based upon the facts averred.
cited
Cited "see"
PA Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee v. PA DOS
See In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1248 (Pa. 2011) (capacity to sue refers to the legal ability of a person to come into court).
discussed
Cited "see"
State Farm v. Kitko, K.
See In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1257 (Pa. 2011). -7- J-A20018-20 Here, Appellant contends the trial court erred in determining that Appellant was disqualified as the primary beneficiary under the terms of the policy because after the divorce decree was issued, Decedent did not subsequently designate, in writing, that Appellant was to remain the primary beneficiary of the policy’s life insurance proceeds.
discussed
Cited "see"
State Farm v. Kitko, K.
See In re Estate of Sauers, 32 A.3d 1241, 1257 (Pa. 2011). -7- J-A20018-20 Here, Appellant contends the trial court erred in determining that Appellant was disqualified as the primary beneficiary under the terms of the policy because after the divorce decree was issued, Decedent did not subsequently designate, in writing, that Appellant was to remain the primary beneficiary of the policy’s life insurance proceeds.
cited
Cited "see"
In Re: Estate of Lloyd, R. Appeal of: Wentworth
See In re Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241 (2011).
examined
Cited "see"
Morrison Informatics, Inc. v. Members 1st Federal Credit Union
(6×)
See id. at 198 , 32 A.3d at 1248 (quoting 67A C.J.S.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Estate of Thomas
See, e.g., Estate of Sauers, 613 Pa. 186 , 32 A.3d 1241 (2011) (Under ERISA, section 6111.2 of the PEF Code is preempted as to life insurance proceeds). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Damtyell VAUGHTER
v.
Damtyell VAUGHTER
Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2011, the Application for Post-submission Communication and the Petition for Allowance of Appeal are hereby DENIED.