green
Positive treatment
20.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Vestmont Limited Partnership v. DOT
(5×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Qualified experts may “state any or all facts and data which the expert considered in arriving at an opinion.” Id. at 776 (cleaned up); see 26 Pa.C.S. § 1105 cmt. (stating the “primary purpose and intent of [Section 1105], however, is to change and broaden existing law which unduly limits the examination and cross examination of an expert witness, so as to permit the expert witness to testify on direct, as well as cross examination, to any and all matters which he considered (not necessarily ‘relied on’) in arriving at his opinion of damages”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Condemnation by Newtown Twp. ~ Appeal of: D. Rafferty
As the Supreme Court has explained: “[W]e are guided by the principle that ‘[t]he admission or exclusion of evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court[.]’ Lehigh–Northampton Airport Authority v. Fuller, 862 A.2d 159, 168 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (citations omitted).” Lower Makefield Township v. Lands of Chester Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772, 778 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
UGI Sunbury LLC v. A Permanent Easement
In his opposition brief, Pontius argues that Lower Makefield Township v. Lands of Chester Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772, 777 (Pa. 2013), establishes that “[o]nly consummated arms-length purchase agreements, contracts to sell, or bona fide offers are relevant and admissible,” Doc. 147 at 14 (internal citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re: Condemnation by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of York Appropriating in Fee Simple Certain Lands of J.E. and J.E. Gearhart
Lower Makefield Township II, 67 A.3d at 777 (trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a 16 letter from a developer containing an offer to purchase the condemned property for $8 million because it “was helpful in demonstrating the demand for the property”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, A.
Lower Makefield Tp. v. Lands of Chester Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772, 776-777 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hummel, D. v. Walmart Stores, Inc, Aplt
(2×)
Lower Makefield Twp. v. Lands of Dalgewicz, 620 Pa. 312 , 67 A.3d 772, 775 (2013).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Braun, M. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Aplt
Lower Makefield Twp. v. Lands of Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772, 775 (Pa. 2013).
discussed
Cited "see"
Re: Trust Under Deed of D. Kulig Apl of Budke, C.
(2×)
See Lower Makefield Twp. v. Lands of Chester Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772, 776 (Pa. 2013) (finding intent in Joint State Government Commission Comments to an Eminent Domain Code provision to “change existing law” in a way that abrogated prior precedent, and concluding that further reliance upon that precedent would be misplaced).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Condemnation by the City of Philadelphia of the Airport Business Center ~ Appeal of: City of Philadelphia
See Pa.R.E. 101; 26 Pa.C.S. § 1101; see also Lower Makefield Twp. v. Lands of Chester Dalgewicz, 67 A.3d 772 , 776 n.5 (Pa. 2013).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James WILLIAMS
v.
Hugh J. BURNS (District Attorney of Phila County), Kathleen Kane (Attorney General of PA)
v.
Hugh J. BURNS (District Attorney of Phila County), Kathleen Kane (Attorney General of PA)
No. 38 EM 2013.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 28, 2013.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 29th day of May, 2013, the Application for Extraordinary Relief and the Application to Supplement are
DENIED.