In Interest of L.Z., 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014). · Go Syfert
Search
In Interest of L.Z., 96 A.3d 989 (Pa. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (49 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: 700 Pharm. v. Bur of WC (State Workers' Ins. Fund), No. 100 MAP 2024 (Pa. June 16, 2026)
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014 2020 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 994 some internal citations omitted8 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • 700 Pharm. v. Bur of WC (State Workers' Ins. Fund), No. 100 MAP 2024 (Pa. June 16, 2026).published
    More so, “it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elect. & Const. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989, 994 (Pa. 2014).
  • 700 Pharm. v. Bur of WC (State Workers' Ins. Fund), No. 99 MAP 2024 (Pa. June 16, 2026).published
    More so, “it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elect. & Const. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989, 994 (Pa. 2014).
  • 700 Pharm. v. Bur of WC (State Workers' Ins. Fund), No. 98 MAP 2024 (Pa. June 16, 2026).published
    More so, “it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elect. & Const. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989, 994 (Pa. 2014).
  • Tedesco Excavating v. FWH Dev., No. 995 WDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 27, 2026).published
    Importantly, in undertaking statutory analysis, “it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elec. & Condy. v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989, 994 (Pa. 2014…
  • Z.P. v. K.P., 269 A.3d 578, 2022 PA Super 6 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022).published 3 cites
    (some internal citations omitted)
  • B. Prunty v. UCBR, No. 1761 C.D. 2019 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 4, 2021).published
    Burke v. Indep[.] Blue Cross, . . . 103 A.3d 1267, 1273-74 ([Pa.] 2014), and ‘it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include,’ Shafer Elec[.] & Constr[.] v.…
  • Seaman v. Colvin, 145 F. Supp. 3d 421 (E.D. Pa. 2015).published
    The Court may not “add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include.” Shafer Elec. & Const. v. Mantia, 626 Pa. 258 , 96 A.3d 989, 994 (2014) (quoting Commonwealth v. Rieck Inv.
  • Summit Sch., Inc. v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Educ., 108 A.3d 192 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).published
    Burke v. Independence Blue Cross, — Pa.-, 103 A.3d 1267, 1273-74 (2014), and “ ‘it is not for the courts to add, by interpretation, to a statute, a requirement which the legislature did not see fit to include,’ ” Shafer Electric & Construc…
At page 993 quantum meruit claim is a claim for unjust enrichment which "implies a contract [and] requires the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the value of the benefit conferred3 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
  • Chelsea Henkel v. Highgate Hotels LP, No. 24-2984 (3d Cir. Jan. 20, 2026).unpublished
    But Pennsylvania law unambiguously requires that “such benefit[]” be “conferred on defendant by plaintiff.” Shafer, 96 A.3d at 993 (citation 6 The parties have submitted numerous documents, none written contracts between the guests and the…
  • Melmark, Inc. v. Schutt by & Through Schutt, 206 A.3d 1096 (Pa. 2019).published
    "In determining if the doctrine applies, our focus is not on the intention of the parties, but rather on whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched." Shafer , 626 Pa. at 264 , 96 A.3d at 993 (internal quotation marks and citation omi…
  • Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, P.L.L.C. v. Law Firm of Malone Middleman, P.C., 179 A.3d 1093 (Pa. 2018).published
    (quantum meruit claim is a claim for unjust enrichment which "implies a contract [and] requires the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the value of the benefit conferred)
At page 996 citations, quotations, and footnotes omitted3 citing cases1 citing court put it this way
At page 1041 cited at this page1 citing case
Other citing cases4 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Interest of L.Z., A Minor Child Petition of L.Z.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jul 17, 2014.
Published opinion
96 A.3d 989
2014 WL 3557637
2014 Pa. LEXIS 1749
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylv… (1) · Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 17th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

(1) Whether the Superior Court, in holding that a parent may only be designated a perpetrator of abuse if the child is “in the parent’s care at the time of the injury,” disregarded the Child Protective Services Law (CPSL) 28 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6301-6386 and departed from established precedent which define “child abuse” to include “acts or omissions” and which permit the dependency court to identify a parent as a perpetrator based on prima facie evidence that the abuse would not have occurred but for the acts or omissions of the parent and clear and convincing evidence that the child was the victim of child abuse?
(2) Whether the Superior Court erred and exceed (sic) its scope and standard of review in vacating the trial court’s finding of abuse against Mother, by disregarding important findings of fact of the trial court, by reweighing the evidence, by making assessments of credibility and by substituting its judgment for that of the trial court, where the trial court found that the child’s multiple injuries were consistent with a pattern of abuse, that Mother provided explanations inconsistent with the injuries, that Mother was responsible for the child’s care and protection, and that Mother failed to act to protect the child from the serious physical injuries he suffered?