green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
55.8 score
“in determining whether a party is indispensable, the basic inquiry remains 'whether justice can be done in the absence of a third party.”
Treatment trajectory · 2013 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2013
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Black Pol. Emp. v. Schmidt, A.
in determining whether a party is indispensable, the basic inquiry remains 'whether justice can be done in the absence of a third party.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
USAA Federal Savings v. Belfi, A.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
USAA Federal Savings v. Belfi, A.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rehab Financial Group v. Grimes, B.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Simone, N., Aplt. v. Zakiul Alam, M.
Simone notes the basic inquiry is [J-92-2024] - 10 “whether justice can be done in the absence of a third party,” Wilson, 50 A.3d at 1277, and this Court has outlined at least four factors a trial court analyzing the indispensable party question must consider: 1.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cavallo Mineral Partners v. EQT Production
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 616 Pa. 491 , 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., 536 Pa. 462 , 640 A.2d 372, 375 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zimmerman, D., Aplts v. Schmidt, A.
Dev., 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012) (“In determining whether a party is indispensable, the basic inquiry remains whether justice can be done in the absence of a third party.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Sprague v. Casey, 550 A.2d 184, 189 (Pa. 1988) (“A party is indispensable when his or her rights are so connected with the claims of the litigants that no decree can be made without impairing those rights. . . .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington Area Humane v. Harr, C.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., 640 A.2d 372, 375 ([Pa.] 1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Liberty Mutual Group v. 700 Pharmacy, LLC
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012) (PSEA) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Liberty Mutual Group v. 700 Pharmacy, LLC
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walker, D. v. Maffeo, M.
Ass’n v. -7- J-A18011-20 Commonwealth, … 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 ([Pa.] 2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., … 640 A.2d 372, 375 ([Pa.] 1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Blackmon, D. v. Moore, Z.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, … 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 ([Pa.] 2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., … 640 A.2d 372, 375 ([Pa.] 1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
County of Berks v. PA OOR and ALDEA - The People's Justice Center
Wilson , 50 A.3d at 1265-66, 1276-77 (action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief by individual school employees and educators' union in case regarding access to home addresses of public school employees; records requests were made to individual school districts and union and school employees brought original jurisdiction action in this Court after discovering that many school districts would not challenge the release of information); Grine , 138 A.3d at 91 (action for declaratory and injunctive relief by two court of common pleas judges to prohibit county in which the judges sat from rel…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Purcell v. Reading School District
Wilson v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 616 Pa. 491 , 50 A.3d 1263, 1270 (2012). .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania State EduCation Ass'n ex rel. Wilson v. Commonwealth, Department of Community & Economic Development
(4×)
Id. at 1274-75.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Reed v. Farabaugh Appeal of: Farabaugh, T.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa. 2012) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, [], 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa.2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., [], 640 A.2d 372, 375 (Pa.1994).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, [ 616 Pa. 491 ], 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa.2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., [ 536 Pa. 462 ], 640 A.2d 372 , 375 ,(Pa.1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northern Forests II, Inc. v. Keta Realty Co.
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, [], 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (Pa.2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., [], 640 A.2d 372, 375 (Pa.1994). - 12 - J-A22016-15 This Court has held that in a quiet title action, all parties who claimed title to the property at issue must be joined as indispensable parties.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Orman, L. v. Mortgage I.T.
Ass’n v. Commomvealth, 616 Pa. 491 , 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (2012), quoting CRY, Inc. v. Mill Serv., Inc., 536 Pa. 462 , 640 A.2d 372, 375 (1994).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania State Education Ass'n ex rel. Wilson v. Commonwealth, Department of Community & Economic Development
(4×)
The Supreme Court agreed with Petitioners’ “central position that the OOR may fairly be regarded as an indispensable party to their efforts to secure a just, timely, and meaningful judicial resolution of their claims.” Id. at 1274-75.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Governor's Office v. Office of Open Records, Aplt.
(13×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 1275.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bowling v. Office of Open Records
Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 616 Pa. 491 , 50 A.3d 1263, 1278-81 (2012) (Castille, C.J., concurring).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania
Assn. v. Com., Dept. of Community and Economic Development, 50 A.3d 1263, 1278 (Pa.2012) (Cas-tille, J., concurring).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Office of the Lieutenant Governor v. Mohn
(3×)
Wilson v. Commonwealth, — Pa.-, 50 A.3d 1263, 1277 (2012) (citing Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Commonwealth, 4 A.3d 1156, 1162 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010)), “determining whether ‘the privacy exception and its attendant balancing test have continued viability under the new Law is a proposition fraught with challenge.’” To explain why it is “fraught with challenge,” a short history of the right to privacy vis a vis public records is in order.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Harrisburg v. Prince, J., Aplt.
Dev., 50 A.3d 1263 , 1275–76 (Pa. 2012) (“PSEA I”); see also id. at 1279 (Castille, J., concurring) (observing that “the OOR may be in the best position to devise an adequate procedure governing all appeals to the OOR that complies with and promotes uniformity in the OOR's administration of the [RTKL]”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Enforcement of Subpoenas b/f the Bd of Med.
See Ballroom, LLC v. Commonwealth, 984 A.2d 582, 588 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (“[I]t is well settled that merely naming the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth party as one of several defendants does not necessarily establish this Court’s original jurisdiction under Section 761.”); see also PSEA, 50 A.3d at 1281-82 (Todd, J., concurring) (“[C]ase law clarifies that naming a Commonwealth agency is not enough to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement; the agency must also be an indispensable party.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kevin POWELL
v.
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Court of Common Pleas
v.
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Court of Common Pleas
No. 74 EM 2012.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug 21, 2012.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (1)
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2012, the Application for Leave to File Original Process is GRANTED, and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus is DENIED.