Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shell, I. v. Shell, B.green1 sentence2024See 23 Pa.C.S. § 3323(d.1) (if a party dies during “divorce proceedings, … and grounds have been established…, the parties’ economic rights and obligations arising under the marriage shall be determined under [the Divorce Code]”); see also Shell v. Shell, 304 A.3d 401, 408 (Pa. Super. 2023). | 1 | 1 |
M.B.S. v. W.E.green1 sentence2022See id. (concluding appeal from denial of preliminary injunction to enforce non-compete agreement was moot because ____________________________________________ or abstract questions, nor can we enter a judgment or decree to which effect cannot be given.” M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). -5- J-A06034-22 agreement had expired).3 However, we must consider whether this case presents an exception to the mootness doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Lico, Inc. v. Dougal, A. v. Lichtenstein, S.green1 sentence2022See id. (concluding appeal from denial of preliminary injunction to enforce non-compete agreement was moot because ____________________________________________ or abstract questions, nor can we enter a judgment or decree to which effect cannot be given.” M.B.S. v. W.E., 232 A.3d 922, 927 (Pa. Super. 2020) (quotation marks and citations omitted). -5- J-A06034-22 agreement had expired).3 However, we must consider whether this case presents an exception to the mootness doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Salisburygreen2 sentences2003See Rosendary, 818 A.2d at 527, 529-30 ; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153, 1162-68 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Carmichael, 818 A.2d 508, 509-10 (Pa.Super.2003); and Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 95-96 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶8 Relying on Commonwealth v. Salisbury, 823 A.2d 914 (Pa.Super.2003), Millward argues that this case presents an exception to Grant . 2003In Salisbury , this Court created an exception to Grant because the appellant, who was sentenced to 90 days imprisonment, “would be precluded from challenging his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a collateral petition.” Id. at 916; accord Commonwealth v. Ingold, 823 A.2d 917, 918 (Pa.Super.2003) (creating an exception to Grant where the appellant was sentenced to seven days time-served). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ingoldgreen1 sentence2003In Salisbury , this Court created an exception to Grant because the appellant, who was sentenced to 90 days imprisonment, “would be precluded from challenging his ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a collateral petition.” Id. at 916; accord Commonwealth v. Ingold, 823 A.2d 917, 918 (Pa.Super.2003) (creating an exception to Grant where the appellant was sentenced to seven days time-served). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Robinsongreen1 sentence2003See Rosendary, 818 A.2d at 527, 529-30 ; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153, 1162-68 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Carmichael, 818 A.2d 508, 509-10 (Pa.Super.2003); and Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 95-96 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶8 Relying on Commonwealth v. Salisbury, 823 A.2d 914 (Pa.Super.2003), Millward argues that this case presents an exception to Grant . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ruizgreen1 sentence2003See Rosendary, 818 A.2d at 527, 529-30 ; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153, 1162-68 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Carmichael, 818 A.2d 508, 509-10 (Pa.Super.2003); and Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 95-96 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶8 Relying on Commonwealth v. Salisbury, 823 A.2d 914 (Pa.Super.2003), Millward argues that this case presents an exception to Grant . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rosendarygreen1 sentence2003See Rosendary, 818 A.2d at 527, 529-30 ; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153, 1162-68 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Carmichael, 818 A.2d 508, 509-10 (Pa.Super.2003); and Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 95-96 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶8 Relying on Commonwealth v. Salisbury, 823 A.2d 914 (Pa.Super.2003), Millward argues that this case presents an exception to Grant . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Carmichaelgreen1 sentence2003See Rosendary, 818 A.2d at 527, 529-30 ; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 817 A.2d 1153, 1162-68 (Pa.Super.2003); Commonwealth v. Carmichael, 818 A.2d 508, 509-10 (Pa.Super.2003); and Commonwealth v. Ruiz, 819 A.2d 92, 95-96 (Pa.Super.2003). ¶8 Relying on Commonwealth v. Salisbury, 823 A.2d 914 (Pa.Super.2003), Millward argues that this case presents an exception to Grant . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2018He argues that Patterson’s testimony was “legally insufficient” because 1) she initially told police she did not know to whom the heroin belonged; 2) she was receiving favorable treatment from the Commonwealth in exchange for her testimony; 3) she was in a romantic relationship with Forsythe; 4) she was a drug addict; and 5) her testimony was inconsistent in ____________________________________________ 1 Commonwealth v. Bennett, 303 A.2d 220 (Pa. Super. 1973). 2 For instance, one could imagine a scenario where all of the elements of a crime, or the most critical elements, derived solely from a | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Board of Commissioners of McCandless Township v. Beho Development Co.
green
2 sentences1977It is too clear for serious argument to the contrary that GFM never believed that its develop ment plan conld proceed in accordance with, the township’s ordinance, that it does not complain of the commissioners’ decision on this ground, and that its appeals below are not therefore to be considered as having been taken pursuant to Section 1006, 53 P.S. §11006 of the MPC. 4 We pointed out in Board of Commissioners of McCandless Township v. Beho Development Co., 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 448 , 332 A.2d 848 (1975), that a purpose of Section 1004 was to give the municipality notice when the applicati 1977It is too clear for serious argument to the contrary that GFM never believed that its develop ment plan conld proceed in accordance with, the township’s ordinance, that it does not complain of the commissioners’ decision on this ground, and that its appeals below are not therefore to be considered as having been taken pursuant to Section 1006, 53 P.S. §11006 of the MPC. 4 We pointed out in Board of Commissioners of McCandless Township v. Beho Development Co., 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 448 , 332 A.2d 848 (1975), that a purpose of Section 1004 was to give the municipality notice when the applicati | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Eller v. Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1977This, we may assume, was intended as a response to the holding of Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1 , 198 A.2d 863 (1964), that under the statutes then existing the landowner might ask the municipal zoning authorities for a variance, advance only his entitlement to a variance before the Zoning Hearing Board, and on appeal raise for the first time a challenge to the validity of the ordinance on substantive grounds. 1977This, we may assume, was intended as a response to the holding of Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1 , 198 A.2d 863 (1964), that under the statutes then existing the landowner might ask the municipal zoning authorities for a variance, advance only his entitlement to a variance before the Zoning Hearing Board, and on appeal raise for the first time a challenge to the validity of the ordinance on substantive grounds. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.