Haas v. Hosgood, 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
Haas v. Hosgood, 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …any tobacco item that can be considered 'drug paraphernalia' as defined by the ordinance. at p. 910 ⚠ not in text
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …knows or reasonably should know that the dual-use item is to be used for an illegal, drug-related purpose. ⚠ not in text
55 citation events (55 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Crawford, S., Aplts. v. Commonwealth (pa, 2024-11-20)
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Crawford, S., Aplts. v. Commonwealth
Pa. · 2024 · confidence medium
Case law abounds with instances in which local and state government have disputed their respective authority to act in a given area.13 As the instant matter makes 13 See, e.g., Schweiker, 858 A.2d at 78-88 (rejecting claim that Philadelphia’s home rule powers included appointment authority over members of Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA), a Commonwealth agency; General Assembly had authority to enact provisions transferring control of PPA from Philadelphia mayor to Commonwealth); Holt’s Cigar Co., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 902, 904-05 (Pa. 2011) (holding that state law pree…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2024 · confidence medium
“For conflict preemption to be applicable, [however,] the conflict between the statute and the ordinance must be irreconcilable.” Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphia, 10 A.3d 902, 907 (Pa. 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cigar Association of America v. City of Philadelphia
3rd Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
“As a city of the first class pursuant to the First Class City Home Rule Act, Philadelphia ‘may exercise all powers and authority of local self- government and shall have complete powers of legislation and administration in relation to its municipal functions.’” Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 10 A.3d 902, 906 (Pa. 2011) (footnote omitted) (quoting 53 Pa. Cons.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. $603.45 Cash
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2016 · confidence medium
At issue in Holt’s Cigar was a Philadelphia ordinance that prohibited the sale of cigar or cigarette rolling papers; cigars or cigarettes sold singly or in packages of fewer than three; certain flavored tobacco items and “any tobacco item that can be considered ‘drug paraphernalia’ [as defined by the ordinance].” Id. at 910.
cited Cited as authority (rule) M. Grubel v. City of Philadelphia and County Board of Elections
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2015 · confidence medium
Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 10 A.3d 902, 907 (Pa. 2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bowling v. Office of Open Records (2×)
Pa. · 2013 · confidence medium
Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 612 Pa. 598 , 32 A.3d 587, 592 (2011); Holt’s Cigar Co., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146 , 10 A.3d 902, 906 (2011).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Moyer v. Gudknecht (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2013 · confidence medium
Hoffman Mining Co., 612 Pa. at 625-31 , 32 A.3d at 603-07 (300-foot setback for surface mining operations in state statute did not preempt local 1000-foot setback because local setback did not conflict with a purpose of state statute); Holt’s Cigar Co., 608 Pa. at 154-57, 163-64 , 10 A.3d at 907-09, 912-13 (additional regulations that are consistent with statute’s purposes are not preempted, but ordinance was preempted because one of statute’s purposes was to protect conduct prohibited by the ordinance); Mars Emergency Medical Services, Inc. v. Township of Adams, 559 Pa. 309, 314-15 , 74…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Berwick Area Landlord Ass'n v. Borough of Berwick
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2012 · confidence medium
Holt’s Cigar Co., Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146, 153-155 , 10 A.3d 902, 907-908 (2011).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board (6×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. · 2011 · confidence medium
Holt’s Cigar Company, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146 , 10 A.3d 902, 906 (2011); Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340 , 938 A.2d 401 , 412 n. 20 (2007).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Whalen v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
Pa. · 2011 · confidence medium
Holt’s Cigar Company, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 608 Pa. 146 , 10 A.3d 902, 906 (2011).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fross v. County of Allegheny (4×) also: Cited "see"
Pa. · 2011 · confidence medium
Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 10 A.3d 902, 907-08 (Pa. 2011) (“Holt’s ”); Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340 , 938 A.2d 401, 411 (2007); see 53 Pa.C.S. § 2961.
discussed Cited "see" CIGAR ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
E.D. Pa. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brief for Appellants at 15, Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 10 A.3d 902 (Pa. 2011) (No. 149 EM 2010), 2009 WL 6498608 (“[T]he City passed the Ordinance [banning the sale of loose cigars] to prevent the sale of tobacco products to minors.”).
discussed Cited "see" Com. v. Brewer, B.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holt's Cigar Co. v. City ofPhiladelphia, 10 A.3d 902, 906 (Pa. 2011); Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 977 A.2d 1132, 1143 (Pa. 2009); 53 P.S. § 1016. 4 (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or (2) such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).
discussed Cited "see" UGI Utilities, Inc. v. City of Reading and PA PUC
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holt's Cigar Co. , 10 A.3d at 913-14 (ordinance preempted where it prohibited sales of certain items regardless of sellers' knowledge where state required proof of seller mens rea because ordinance conflicted with state purpose to protect innocent sellers); Cellucci v. General Motors Corp. , 550 Pa. 407 , 706 A.2d 806 , 809-12 (1998) (requirement that manufacturer use one of three compliance options permitted by federal regulation conflicted with federal purpose to give manufacturers flexibility of choosing the method of compliance).
cited Cited "see" Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie
Pa. Commw. Ct. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Holt’s Cigar Co. v. City of Phila., 608 Pa. 146 , 10 A.3d 902 (2011) (an ordinance may not obstruct the purpose and objective of a statute).
Carol HAAS, Petitioner
v.
Tina M. HOSGOOD, Respondent
149 EM 2010.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Dec 30, 2010.
10 A.3d 902
2010 Pa. LEXIS 3061
Per Curiam.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of December, 2010, the Petition for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Allowance of Appeal and the Petition for Permission to Respond are DENIED.