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 1 courts 2006–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hubert v. Greenwaldgreen2 sentences2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue 2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Grosellagreen1 sentence2024As a second preliminary matter, we observe “that the reinstatement of direct appeal rights is not the proper remedy when appellate counsel perfected a direct appeal but simply failed to raise certain claims.” Commonwealth v. Grosella, 902 A.2d 1290, 1293 (Pa.Super. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Beattygreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Beatty, 207 A.3d 957, 961 (Pa.Super. 2000)(“Pennsylvania law makes clear the trial court has no jurisdiction to consider a subsequent PCRA petition while an appeal from the denial of the petitioner’s prior PCRA petition in the same case is still pending on appeal”). -2- J-S34024-19 content of the report showed a “normal” examination and was not “inadmissible” as opinion? | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hart v. O'MALLEY
green
2 sentences2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue 2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue | 3 | 2006–2006 |
In Re AL
green
2 sentences2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue 2006In light of these facts, the court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the issue of who was the “legal mother.” 22 See In re A.L., supra; Fallaro, supra. See also Hubert v. Greenwald, 743 A.2d 977 (Pa.Super.1999) (holding court has no jurisdiction to proceed in absence of indispensable party); Hart v. O’Malley, 436 Pa.Super. 151 , 647 A.2d 542 (1994) (same). ¶ 38 Even if we were to ignore the fact that the court sua sponte addressed the validity of the Contract without a request from the parties and without all indispensable parties present, we would conclude that the court’s analysis of the issue | 3 | 2006–2006 |
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.