clear language rule (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

clear language rule in Pennsylvania

5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2017 0 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
F.D.P. v. Ferraragreen
pasuperct · 2002 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2003–2017
2 sentences

2017However, this Court has held that “Rule 341(e) certification, under the clear language of the rule, is available only to ‘final’ orders disposing of one but fewer than all parties or causes of action.” F.D.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221, 1226 (Pa. Super. 2002). “[Certification under Rule 341(c) was designed to allow for an immediate appeal of a ‘final’ order relating to [fewer] than all parties or [fewer] than all claims.

2003As this Court recently held in F.D.P. v. Ferrara, 804 A.2d 1221, 1226 (Pa.Super.2002), “Rule 341(c) certification, under the clear language of the rule, is available only to ‘final’ orders disposing of one but fewer than all parties or causes of action.” Here, the context of the underlying order is interlocutory; finality is not defeated solely by outstanding claims or parties.

22
Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Insurancegreen
pa · 1990 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See, e.g., Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa. Super. 1990); Winterhalter v. West Penn Power Co., 512 A.2d 1187 , 1189 26 (Pa. Super. 1986) ("Courts have allowed amendments at any time, as provided by the specific language of this statute.); Biglan v. Biglan, 479 A.2d 1021, 1025 ("As can be seen from the clear language of this rule, no limit is imposed on the time when an amendment may be made.").

11
Biglan v. Biglangreen
pa · 1984 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See, e.g., Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa. Super. 1990); Winterhalter v. West Penn Power Co., 512 A.2d 1187 , 1189 26 (Pa. Super. 1986) ("Courts have allowed amendments at any time, as provided by the specific language of this statute.); Biglan v. Biglan, 479 A.2d 1021, 1025 ("As can be seen from the clear language of this rule, no limit is imposed on the time when an amendment may be made.").

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Winterhalter v. West Penn Power Co. green
pa · 1986
1 sentence

2017See, e.g., Horowitz v. Universal Underwriters Ins., 580 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa. Super. 1990); Winterhalter v. West Penn Power Co., 512 A.2d 1187 , 1189 26 (Pa. Super. 1986) ("Courts have allowed amendments at any time, as provided by the specific language of this statute.); Biglan v. Biglan, 479 A.2d 1021, 1025 ("As can be seen from the clear language of this rule, no limit is imposed on the time when an amendment may be made.").

12017–2017
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation v. Hodes green
pasuperct · 2001
1 sentence

2002Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Hodes, 784 A.2d 144 (Pa.Super.2001); Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp., 385 Pa.Super. 260 , 560 A.2d 793 (1989); see also Shadduck v. Christopher J.

12002–2002
Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp. green
pa · 1989
2 sentences

2002Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Hodes, 784 A.2d 144 (Pa.Super.2001); Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp., 385 Pa.Super. 260 , 560 A.2d 793 (1989); see also Shadduck v. Christopher J.

2002Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Hodes, 784 A.2d 144 (Pa.Super.2001); Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp., 385 Pa.Super. 260 , 560 A.2d 793 (1989); see also Shadduck v. Christopher J.

12002–2002
Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White green
pa · 1973
2 sentences

1982They cite such authority as Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White, 451 Pa. 137 , 302 A.2d 347 (1973),. and the clear-language rule discussed therein.

1982They cite such authority as Robert F. Felte, Inc. v. White, 451 Pa. 137 , 302 A.2d 347 (1973),. and the clear-language rule discussed therein.

11982–1982

Where else courts name it

TX 25 (1981–2025) FL 7 (1967–2004) IL 6 (2003–2012) IA 5 (1994–2026) WA 5 (2008–2019) PA 5 (1982–2017) CA 3 (1955–1989) UT 3 (1989–2021) TN 3 (1998–2001) AZ 3 (2013–2018) ID 3 (1979–2014) WV 2 (1993–2009) MD 2 (1991–1991) NH 2 (2006–2020) NC 2 (1979–1979)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check