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 1973–2016 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Schuylkill Township v. Pennsylvania Builders Associationgreen1 sentence2016The emphasis of the exception Williams invoked is “on [the] newly discovered facts, not on a newly discovered or newly willing source for previously known facts.” Commonwealth v. Marshall, 947 A.2d 714, 720 (Pa. 2008) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Pritchard v. Dow Agro Sciencesgreen1 sentence2009As the Commonwealth Court observed, federal courts have interpreted Federal Rule 36 as liberally permitting withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions "where upholding the admission would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case; where withdrawal would prevent manifest injustice; and where the party who obtained the admissions failed to prove that withdrawal would result in prejudice to that party." Dwight v. Girard Medical Center, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 326 , 623 A.2d 913, 916 (1993) (citing Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192 (D.Conn.1 | 1 | 1 |
Dwight v. Girard Medical Centergreen2 sentences2009As the Commonwealth Court observed, federal courts have interpreted Federal Rule 36 as liberally permitting withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions "where upholding the admission would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case; where withdrawal would prevent manifest injustice; and where the party who obtained the admissions failed to prove that withdrawal would result in prejudice to that party." Dwight v. Girard Medical Center, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 326 , 623 A.2d 913, 916 (1993) (citing Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192 (D.Conn.1 2009As the Commonwealth Court observed, federal courts have interpreted Federal Rule 36 as liberally permitting withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions "where upholding the admission would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case; where withdrawal would prevent manifest injustice; and where the party who obtained the admissions failed to prove that withdrawal would result in prejudice to that party." Dwight v. Girard Medical Center, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 326 , 623 A.2d 913, 916 (1993) (citing Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192 (D.Conn.1 | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Browngreen2 sentences1997See Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 388, 392-93 , 357 A.2d 147, 149-50 (1976) (trial court did not err in allowing metal rod and wooden handle found at murder scene to be taken into the jury room where defense counsel displayed metal rod to jury during his summation and raised condition of rod as a means to refute Commonwealth’s case). 1997See Commonwealth v. Brown, 467 Pa. 388, 392-93 , 357 A.2d 147, 149-50 (1976) (trial court did not err in allowing metal rod and wooden handle found at murder scene to be taken into the jury room where defense counsel displayed metal rod to jury during his summation and raised condition of rod as a means to refute Commonwealth’s case). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp.
green
1 sentence2009As the Commonwealth Court observed, federal courts have interpreted Federal Rule 36 as liberally permitting withdrawal or amendment of responses to requests for admissions "where upholding the admission would practically eliminate any presentation of the merits of the case; where withdrawal would prevent manifest injustice; and where the party who obtained the admissions failed to prove that withdrawal would result in prejudice to that party." Dwight v. Girard Medical Center, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 326 , 623 A.2d 913, 916 (1993) (citing Westmoreland v. Triumph Motorcycle Corp., 71 F.R.D. 192 (D.Conn.1 | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. Wilson Arroyo-Angulo, Hugo Gomez, Jaime Rayo-Montano and Guillermo Moreno
green
1 sentence1981In view of the emphasis which defense counsel placed upon the bias of the Commonwealth witnesses, we conclude that the error in stressing this particular witness’ lack of bias does not require reversal. 4 United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913 , 99 S.Ct. 285 , 58 L.Ed.2d 260 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Arroyo-Angulo v. United States
green
1 sentence1981In view of the emphasis which defense counsel placed upon the bias of the Commonwealth witnesses, we conclude that the error in stressing this particular witness’ lack of bias does not require reversal. 4 United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913 , 99 S.Ct. 285 , 58 L.Ed.2d 260 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Goldsmith v. United States
green
1 sentence1981In view of the emphasis which defense counsel placed upon the bias of the Commonwealth witnesses, we conclude that the error in stressing this particular witness’ lack of bias does not require reversal. 4 United States v. Arroyo-Angulo, 580 F.2d 1137 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 913 , 99 S.Ct. 285 , 58 L.Ed.2d 260 (1978). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Golden Slipper Square Club v. Golden Slipper Restaurant & Catering, Inc.
green
2 sentences1973Similarly, in Golden Slipper Square Club v. Golden Slipper Restaurant & Catering, Inc., 371 Pa. 92 , 88 A. 2d 734 (1952), this Court enjoined the use of the name “Golden Slipper” by a non competing business upon a finding that the name was adopted with the specific intention of trading upon plaintiff’s reputation. 1973Similarly, in Golden Slipper Square Club v. Golden Slipper Restaurant & Catering, Inc., 371 Pa. 92 , 88 A. 2d 734 (1952), this Court enjoined the use of the name “Golden Slipper” by a non competing business upon a finding that the name was adopted with the specific intention of trading upon plaintiff’s reputation. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Food Fair Stores, Inc., a Corporation v. Lakeland Grocery Corp., a Corporation
green
1 sentence1973Indeed, it is pointed out in Nims on Unfair Competition and Trademarks, Section 218b, page 649, that to some extent the emphasis of the inquiry has been shifted in determining whether a trademark or trade name is entitled to extra-territorial protection, so that in some cases much more stress is placed upon the question of good faith and much less on the extent to which the name is known in a given area.” 301 F. 2d at 162-63 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.