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.
34 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1956–2024 10 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Ryangreen2 sentences2018In re Ryan, 784 A.2d at 805 (“on April 16, 2001, an informal hearing was held before a mental health review officer. 2018In re Ryan , 784 A.2d at 805 ("on April 16, 2001, an informal hearing was held before a mental health review officer. | 3 | 3 |
In Re JMgreen2 sentences2015See In re Ryan, 784 A.2d 803, 806 (Pa. Super. 2001) (“Under section 7303, when a facility deems a patient to be in need of additional care beyond the 120 hours of emergency care authorized by section 7302, an application to extend treatment may be filed in the trial court and an informal hearing held within 24 hours of the filing of the application [and] after the hearing, if the judge or mental health review officer certifies the patient as severely mentally disabled, he may authorize up to an additional twenty days of treatment.”); J.M, 726 A.2d 1041, 1047, n.9 (“Pennsylvania jurisprudence h 2009In Re: J.M., 556 Pa. 63 , 726 A.2d 1041, 1046-49 (1999). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Prestongreen2 sentences2024However, if there is evidence of the existence of such necessary documents, “we might well make an informal inquiry to see if there was an error in transmitting the certified record to this Court.” Id. at 8 . 2024However, if there is evidence of the existence of such necessary documents, “we might well make an informal inquiry to see if there was an error in transmitting the certified record to this Court.” Id. at 8 . | 2 | 7 |
In Re RDgreen2 sentences2009See In re: R.D., 739 A.2d 548, 555-57 (Pa.Super.1999) (discussing increased procedural protections such as evidentiary formalities as length of commitment increases). ¶ 16 As is apparent from the foregoing discussion, the initial infringement of liberty interests when the person is transported to a treatment facility, subjected to an involuntary psychiatric examination/treatment and then, perhaps, subjected to an informal hearing for a possible twenty-day commitment, takes place with minimal due process or other constitutional guarantees. 2009See In re: R.D., 739 A.2d 548, 555-57 (Pa.Super.1999) (discussing increased procedural protections such as evidentiary formalities as length of commitment increases). ¶ 16 As is apparent from the foregoing discussion, the initial infringement of liberty interests when the person is transported to a treatment facility, subjected to an involuntary psychiatric examination/treatment and then, perhaps, subjected to an informal hearing for a possible twenty-day commitment, takes place with minimal due process or other constitutional guarantees. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. O'Blackgreen2 sentences2024We might also formally remand the matter to the trial court to ascertain whether notes of testimony or other documentation can be located and transmitted. [Commonwealth v. O’Black, 897 A.2d 1234, 1238 (Pa. Super. 2006).] If a remand is necessary, it is appropriate to direct the trial court to determine why the necessary documentation was omitted from the certified record. [Commonwealth v. ]Williams, 715 A.2d [1101, ]1107 [(Pa. 1998)]. 2024We might also formally remand the matter to the trial court to ascertain whether notes of testimony or other documentation can be located and transmitted. [Commonwealth v. O’Black, 897 A.2d 1234 , 1238 (Pa. Super. 2006).] If a remand is necessary, it is appropriate to direct the trial court to determine why the necessary documentation was omitted from the certified record. [Commonwealth v. ]Williams, 715 A.2d [1101, ]1107 [(Pa. 1998)]. | 1 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Burksgreen1 sentence2024See Commonwealth v. Burks, 102 A.3d 497, 500 (Pa. Super. 2014) (noting this Court may consider the timeliness of an appeal sua sponte). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wrecksgreen1 sentence2024Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 143 , 84 A.3d 657, 671 (2014) (quotation marks and quotations omitted). 9 We note that we made an informal inquiry to the lower court requesting the trial transcript; however, the lower court confirmed the notes of testimony from Appellant’s trial were not transcribed. contains the documents reflecting the facts needed for review.” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A2d 717, 722 (Pa.Super. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hairstongreen2 sentences2024Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 143 , 84 A.3d 657, 671 (2014) (quotation marks and quotations omitted). 9 We note that we made an informal inquiry to the lower court requesting the trial transcript; however, the lower court confirmed the notes of testimony from Appellant’s trial were not transcribed. contains the documents reflecting the facts needed for review.” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A2d 717, 722 (Pa.Super. 2007). 2024Commonwealth v. Hairston, 624 Pa. 143 , 84 A.3d 657, 671 (2014) (quotation marks and quotations omitted). 9 We note that we made an informal inquiry to the lower court requesting the trial transcript; however, the lower court confirmed the notes of testimony from Appellant’s trial were not transcribed. contains the documents reflecting the facts needed for review.” Commonwealth v. Wrecks, 931 A2d 717, 722 (Pa.Super. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Matsingergreen1 sentence2017See Matsinger, supra. Here, based on the trial court’s informal inquiry, the trial court dismissed the matter. | 1 | 1 |
Ferrante v. Ferrantegreen1 sentence2013We remind Lititz’s counsel that "the burden to produce a complete record for appellate review rests solely with the appellant.” Ferrante v. Ferrante, 791 A.2d 399, 403 (Pa.Super.2002). . | 1 | 1 |
Abremski v. Southeastern School District Boardgreen1 sentence1983Abremski v. Southeastern School District, 54 Commw. 292, 296, 421 A.2d 485, 487 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mifflin County School District v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2018Though the issue was technically moot, this Court decided that it was clearly one of public importance due to its possible impact on future elections. *272 In Mifflin County School District v. Stewart by Stewart , 94 Pa.Cmwlth. 313 , 503 A.2d 1012 (1986), this Court considered whether a school district failed to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education when the school district initially suspended a graduating student for three days, conducted an informal hearing on the third day, and then extended the extension another four days without providing the student with a formal he 2018Though the issue was technically moot, this Court decided that it was clearly one of public importance due to its possible impact on future elections. *272 In Mifflin County School District v. Stewart by Stewart , 94 Pa.Cmwlth. 313 , 503 A.2d 1012 (1986), this Court considered whether a school district failed to comply with the regulations of the State Board of Education when the school district initially suspended a graduating student for three days, conducted an informal hearing on the third day, and then extended the extension another four days without providing the student with a formal he | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. Commonwealth Insurance Department
green
2 sentences2009Pennsylvania Dental Association involved the right of dentists, members of the association, to intervene in the Insurance Department’s informal hearing on a request by Blue Shield for approval of a rate increase. 9 It is true, as Petitioners observe, that the Supreme Court noted that Pennsylvania Dental Association “was clearly eligible to intervene under 1 Pa. Code § 35.28 (a)(2).” Id. at 228 , 516 A.2d at 652 . 1997In arguing that the Policyholders were entitled to nothing more than the informal hearing, the Department and INA Financial cite to City of Pittsburgh v. Insurance Department, 448 Pa. 466 , 294 A.2d 892 (1972), and Pennsylvania Dental Association v. Insurance Department, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 77, 498 A.2d 990 (1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 512 Pa. 217 , 516 A.2d 647 (1986). | 2 | 1997–2009 |
In Re Commitment of Hutchinson
green
2 sentences1999See 50 P.S. § 7303(c); In re Hutchinson, 500 Pa. 152 , 159 n. 8, 454 A.2d 1008 , 1011 n. 8 (1982) (legislature has determined that commitments for less than 20 days do not require same formalities as are necessary in commitments for longer periods of time). 1999See 50 P.S. § 7303(c); In re Hutchinson, 500 Pa. 152 , 159 n. 8, 454 A.2d 1008 , 1011 n. 8 (1982) (legislature has determined that commitments for less than 20 days do not require same formalities as are necessary in commitments for longer periods of time). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
J.P. v. Department of Human Services
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
D.C. v. School District of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2005As noted in n1 above, K.C. was adjudicated delinquent on a charge of possession of marijuana, which falls under Section 2134(c)(ii). [7] The Commonwealth notes that cases finding damage to reputations have involved matters such as public accusations of a crime, see Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 568 Pa. 471 , 798 A.2d 186 (2002), or reports associating attorneys with fraudulent insurance claims, Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth, 147 Pa. Cmwlth. 351, 607 A.2d 850 (1992). [1] Section 2134 of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, added by the Act | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Carlacci v. Mazaleski
green
2 sentences2005As noted in n1 above, K.C. was adjudicated delinquent on a charge of possession of marijuana, which falls under Section 2134(c)(ii). [7] The Commonwealth notes that cases finding damage to reputations have involved matters such as public accusations of a crime, see Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 568 Pa. 471 , 798 A.2d 186 (2002), or reports associating attorneys with fraudulent insurance claims, Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth, 147 Pa. Cmwlth. 351, 607 A.2d 850 (1992). [1] Section 2134 of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, added by the Act 2005As noted in n1 above, K.C. was adjudicated delinquent on a charge of possession of marijuana, which falls under Section 2134(c)(ii). [7] The Commonwealth notes that cases finding damage to reputations have involved matters such as public accusations of a crime, see Carlacci v. Mazaleski, 568 Pa. 471 , 798 A.2d 186 (2002), or reports associating attorneys with fraudulent insurance claims, Pennsylvania Bar Ass'n v. Commonwealth, 147 Pa. Cmwlth. 351, 607 A.2d 850 (1992). [1] Section 2134 of the Public School Code of 1949 (School Code), Act of March 10, 1949, P.L. 30, as amended, added by the Act | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Higgins v. Beyer
green
2 sentences2003I find additional support for this dissent in Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683 (3d Cir.2002), a case in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a New Jersey statute providing for the deduction of funds from inmate accounts for victim restitution purposes. 2003I find additional support for this dissent in Higgins v. Beyer, 293 F.3d 683 (3d Cir.2002), a case in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a New Jersey statute providing for the deduction of funds from inmate accounts for victim restitution purposes. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Pittsburgh v. Insurance Department
green
2 sentences1997In arguing that the Policyholders were entitled to nothing more than the informal hearing, the Department and INA Financial cite to City of Pittsburgh v. Insurance Department, 448 Pa. 466 , 294 A.2d 892 (1972), and Pennsylvania Dental Association v. Insurance Department, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 77, 498 A.2d 990 (1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 512 Pa. 217 , 516 A.2d 647 (1986). 1997In arguing that the Policyholders were entitled to nothing more than the informal hearing, the Department and INA Financial cite to City of Pittsburgh v. Insurance Department, 448 Pa. 466 , 294 A.2d 892 (1972), and Pennsylvania Dental Association v. Insurance Department, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 77, 498 A.2d 990 (1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 512 Pa. 217 , 516 A.2d 647 (1986). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Pennsylvania Dental Ass'n v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence1997In arguing that the Policyholders were entitled to nothing more than the informal hearing, the Department and INA Financial cite to City of Pittsburgh v. Insurance Department, 448 Pa. 466 , 294 A.2d 892 (1972), and Pennsylvania Dental Association v. Insurance Department, 92 Pa. Cmwlth. 77, 498 A.2d 990 (1985), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 512 Pa. 217 , 516 A.2d 647 (1986). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Commonwealth v. Zaffina
green
2 sentences1983Discussing this provision of the PCHA, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zaffina, 432 Pa. 435 , 248 A.2d 5 (1968), held that whenever the facts alleged by a PCHA petitioner indicate that he is entitled to a hearing, the hearing judge may never substitute an informal inquiry of his own for the .on-the-record evidentiary hearing. 1983Discussing this provision of the PCHA, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zaffina, 432 Pa. 435 , 248 A.2d 5 (1968), held that whenever the facts alleged by a PCHA petitioner indicate that he is entitled to a hearing, the hearing judge may never substitute an informal inquiry of his own for the .on-the-record evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Commonwealth v. Madronal
green
2 sentences1983Extending this principle, our Court determined in Commonwealth v. Madronal, 279 Pa.Super. 57 , 420 A.2d 742 (1980), that if a petitioner is prejudiced by this kind of procedure, surely the Commonwealth is prejudiced when the petition is granted without a hearing. 1983Extending this principle, our Court determined in Commonwealth v. Madronal, 279 Pa.Super. 57 , 420 A.2d 742 (1980), that if a petitioner is prejudiced by this kind of procedure, surely the Commonwealth is prejudiced when the petition is granted without a hearing. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Leonardis
green
2 sentences1977In Leonardis , the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while there must be a hearing before a judge, because of the nature of the diversion decision the hearing did not have to be “a trial-type proceeding” but could be “an informal hearing,” followed by “the procedural protection of a statement of reasons after each determination of [the defendant’s] admission, rejection or continuation in a [diversion] program.” 71 N.J. at 122 , 363 A.2d at 340 . 1977In Leonardis , the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that while there must be a hearing before a judge, because of the nature of the diversion decision the hearing did not have to be “a trial-type proceeding” but could be “an informal hearing,” followed by “the procedural protection of a statement of reasons after each determination of [the defendant’s] admission, rejection or continuation in a [diversion] program.” 71 N.J. at 122 , 363 A.2d at 340 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Philadelphia Art Alliance v. Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1956Nevertheless the Board of Adjustment, after an informal hearing, rejected petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the application Avas no different than the one that had previously been denied. “. . . a non-conforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased in extent by natural expansion and growth of trade, neither is it essential that its exercise at the time the ordinance was enacted should have utilized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted” : Humphreys v. Stuart Realt 1956Nevertheless the Board of Adjustment, after an informal hearing, rejected petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the application Avas no different than the one that had previously been denied. “. . . a non-conforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased in extent by natural expansion and growth of trade, neither is it essential that its exercise at the time the ordinance was enacted should have utilized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted” : Humphreys v. Stuart Realt | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Davis Appeal
green
2 sentences1956Nevertheless the Board of Adjustment, after an informal hearing, rejected petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the application Avas no different than the one that had previously been denied. “. . . a non-conforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased in extent by natural expansion and growth of trade, neither is it essential that its exercise at the time the ordinance was enacted should have utilized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted” : Humphreys v. Stuart Realt 1956Nevertheless the Board of Adjustment, after an informal hearing, rejected petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the application Avas no different than the one that had previously been denied. “. . . a non-conforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased in extent by natural expansion and growth of trade, neither is it essential that its exercise at the time the ordinance was enacted should have utilized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted” : Humphreys v. Stuart Realt | 1 | 1956–1956 |
HUMPHREYS v. Stuart Realty Corp.
green
1 sentence1956Nevertheless the Board of Adjustment, after an informal hearing, rejected petitioners’ appeal on the ground that the application Avas no different than the one that had previously been denied. “. . . a non-conforming use cannot be limited by a zoning ordinance to the precise magnitude thereof which existed at the date of the ordinance; it may be increased in extent by natural expansion and growth of trade, neither is it essential that its exercise at the time the ordinance was enacted should have utilized the entire tract upon which the business was being conducted” : Humphreys v. Stuart Realt | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.