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 3 courts 1924–1998 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Taras v. Wausau Ins. Companies
green
1 sentence1998It noted that the exclusivity provision of the WCA has generally “been held to bar tort actions flowing from any work-related injury.” Id. at 42 , 602 A.2d at 884 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Morrison v. Dept. of Public Welfare
green
2 sentences1994With regard to the common carrier issue raised by Sehleifer in post-trial motions, see note 2, supra, the court found that even if characterizing Sehleifer as a common carrier was error, it was harmless error. 148 Pa.Commw.Ct. at 254 n. 3, 610 A.2d at 1085 n. 3. . 1994With regard to the common carrier issue raised by Sehleifer in post-trial motions, see note 2, supra, the court found that even if characterizing Sehleifer as a common carrier was error, it was harmless error. 148 Pa.Commw.Ct. at 254 n. 3, 610 A.2d at 1085 n. 3. . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Coker v. SM Flickinger Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1994The scope of review is narrowed in such a case to enable the appellate court to perform its review function without improperly interfering with the trial court's discretionary power to order a new trial. "[T]he overriding concern is that an appellate court refrain from ordering a retrial where the trial court would not have done so.” See discussion at id. 533 Pa. at 451-452 , 625 A.2d at 1186-87 . . 1994The scope of review is narrowed in such a case to enable the appellate court to perform its review function without improperly interfering with the trial court's discretionary power to order a new trial. "[T]he overriding concern is that an appellate court refrain from ordering a retrial where the trial court would not have done so.” See discussion at id. 533 Pa. at 451-452 , 625 A.2d at 1186-87 . . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Wilhelm v. Sunbury & Selinsgrove Ry. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1930Co., 281 Pa. 69 ; and the other cases cited, where the action was not brought by a passenger of a common carrier and the test of responsibility depended upon the exercise of ordinary care. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Knott v. Botany Mills
green
1 sentence1925But in Knott v. Botany Mills, 179 U. S. 69 , it was held that stipulations relieving a carrier from liability for loss arising from negligence in loading or stowage of a cargo, shall not only be unlawful but shall be null and void. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Luella Coal Co.
neutral
1 sentence1924Co., 81 S. E. 1044 , the Supreme Court of West Virginia said: “Assuming that *587 the consignee was justified in refusing to accept, for there was no duty on the carrier to test the question of ownership between consignor and consignee, it was not liable to plaintiff for the freight” (p. 1045). | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.