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 4 courts 1953–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. Chester Housing Authoritygreen2 sentences2014In underlying the importance of the governmental-proprietary distinction, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained in Mitchell v. Chester Housing Authority, 132 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa. 1957), “The obvious purpose of the rule is to permit a newly appointed governmental body to function freely on behalf of the public and in response to the governmental power or body politic by which it was appointed or elected, unhampered by the policies of the predecessors who have since been replaced by the appointing or electing power.” “In determining whether activity is governmental or proprietary, the court wil 2005In Mitchell v. Chester Housing Auth., 389 Pa. 314, 324-25 , 132 A.2d 873, 878 (1957), the Supreme Court explained the public policy behind this rule of law: The obvious purpose of the rule is to permit a newly appointed governmental body to function freely on behalf of the public and in response to the governmental power or body politic by which it was appointed or elected, unhampered by the policies of the predecessors who have since been replaced by the appointing or electing power. | 2 | 2 |
Municipal Authority of the Borough of Edgeworth v. Borough of Ambridge Water Authoritygreen2 sentences2014In underlying the importance of the governmental-proprietary distinction, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained in Mitchell v. Chester Housing Authority, 132 A.2d 873, 878 (Pa. 1957), “The obvious purpose of the rule is to permit a newly appointed governmental body to function freely on behalf of the public and in response to the governmental power or body politic by which it was appointed or elected, unhampered by the policies of the predecessors who have since been replaced by the appointing or electing power.” “In determining whether activity is governmental or proprietary, the court wil 2014“If the answer to any of these inquiries is yes, the function is proprietary.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Jencks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1975“Once the defendant learns the state secret or the identity of the informer, the underlying basis for the privilege disappears. . . .” Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 675 (1957) (Concurring opinion by Burton, J.). 1975"Once the defendant learns the state secret or the identity of the informer, the underlying basis for the privilege disappears. . . ." Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 675 (1957) (Concurring opinion by BURTON, J.). | 1 | 1 |
Roviaro v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1975In other words, the obvious purpose of the privilege is to maintain the Government’s channels of communication by shielding the identity of an informer from those who would have cause to resent his conduct. 2 The scope of the privilege, however, is limited by its underlying purpose: “[O]nce the identity of the informer has been disclosed to those who would have cause to resent the communication, the privilege is no longer applicable.” Roviaro v. United States, supra at 60. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lobolito, Inc. v. North Pocono School District
green
2 sentences2007The policy basis for the governmental-proprietary distinction, as developed in the common law of this Commonwealth, was discussed at length in Lobolito, in which the Court there undertook a historical survey, see Lobolito, 562 Pa. at 384-87 , 755 A.2d at 1289-91 , and recognized the underlying rationale as it had previously been expressed: The obvious purpose of the rule is to permit a newly appointed governmental body to function freely on behalf of the public and in response to the governmental power or body politic by which it was appointed or elected, unhampered by the policies of the pred 2007The policy basis for the governmental-proprietary distinction, as developed in the common law of this Commonwealth, was discussed at length in Lobolito, in which the Court there undertook a historical survey, see Lobolito, 562 Pa. at 384-87 , 755 A.2d at 1289-91 , and recognized the underlying rationale as it had previously been expressed: The obvious purpose of the rule is to permit a newly appointed governmental body to function freely on behalf of the public and in response to the governmental power or body politic by which it was appointed or elected, unhampered by the policies of the pred | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
green
2 sentences1953And an average having a broad base will rest on a more solid foundation than a short term average or a cost based on spot prices": Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, supra, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 197 , 90 A. 2d 607 . 1953And an average having a broad base will rest on a more solid foundation than a short term average or a cost based on spot prices": Pittsburgh v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, supra, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 197 , 90 A. 2d 607 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.