green
Positive treatment
10.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Crumm v. K. Murphy & Co.
Green Services Inc., 804 A.2d 643, 651 (Pa. Super. 2002)); see also, Caro v. Glah, 867 A.2d 531, 533 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citation omitted); Szpynda v. Pyles, 433 Pa. Super. 1, 4-5 , 639 A.2d 1181, 1183 (1994). (citation omitted) A grant of summary judgment “is proper only when the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions of record, and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wright, 963 A.2d at 514 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
O'Sullivan v. Rhode Island Hospital
Szpynda v. Pyles, 433 Pa.Super. 1 , 639 A.2d 1181, 1183 (1994). 16 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Nationwide Trucking Services, Inc.
Smith v. Bell Telephone Co. of Pennsylvania, 397 Pa. 134, 142 , 153 A.2d 477, 481 (1959); Szpynda v. Pyles, 433 Pa.Super. 1 , 639 A.2d 1181, 1184 (1994).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaither v. City Hospital, Inc.
(2×)
Such wasteful overabundance of caution is not the goal of our statute of limitations.” Szpynda v. Pyles, 433 Pa.Super. 1 , 639 A.2d 1181, 1184-85 (1994). 9 We acknowledge a strong policy by the Legislature in favor of limiting the time period in which patients may bring actions for negligent medical treatment and its intention to assist medical providers in being free of -claims after a reasonable period of time in which no action is raised.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. King, T.
See In Interest of A.P., 617 A.2d 764 , 767 -5- J-S41025-20 (Pa.Super. 1992), aff'd, 639 A.2d 1181 (Pa.1994) (“Once it is determined that an appellant was denied his or her constitutional right of direct appeal, the proper course of action is to grant the appellant leave to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc”).
cited
Cited "see"
In the Interest of: B.D.
See B.D.’s Brief at 5 & n.1 (citing In Interest of A.P., 617 A.2d 764 (Pa. Super. 1992) (en banc), aff’d, 639 A.2d 1181 (Pa. 1994)).
examined
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Descardes
(3×)
See In the Interest of A.P., 421 Pa.Super. 141 , 617 A.2d 764 (1992), affirmed, 536 Pa. 450 , 639 A.2d 1181 (1994) (claim not cognizable under the PCRA because juvenile was not convicted • of a crime but was rather adjudicated delinquent).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Stock
(2×)
Accord In the Interest of A.P., 421 Pa.Super. 141 , 617 A.2d 764 (1992)(en banc), aff'd per curiam, 536 Pa. 450 , 639 A.2d 1181 (1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest of A.P. Appeal of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Apr 22, 1994.
Nix, C.J., and Flaherty, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy and Castille.
Published
Catherine Marshall, Ronald Eisenberg, Alan Sacks, Philadelphia, for appellant.
John W. Packel, Bradley S. Bridge, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY and CASTILLE, JJ.
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
Order affirmed.
MONTEMURO, S.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.[*]
PAPADAKOS, J., dissents and would grant an evidentiary hearing.
[*] Mr. Justice Frank J. MONTEMURO is sitting by designation as Senior Justice pursuant to Judicial Assignment Docket No. 94 R1800, due to the unavailability of Mr. Justice LARSEN, see No. 127 Judicial Administration Docket No. 1, filed October 28, 1993.