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.
29 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2024 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Coopergreen2 sentences2024“Where, however, the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the appeal timely without remand.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 79 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citation omitted). 2024See Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 79 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Where … the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the [filing] and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the [filing] timely without remand.”). -4- J-S14043-24 at 1-2 (unpaginated). | 18 | 22 |
Commonwealth v. Pattersongreen2 sentences2019“Where, however, the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the appeal timely without remand.” Cooper, 710 A.2d at 79 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deeming appeal timely based on the date on the notice of appeal and date of receipt three days after the thirty-day period expired). 2019"Where, however, the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner's assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the appeal timely without remand." Cooper, 710 A.2d at 79 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710, 714 (Pa. Super. 2007) (deeming appeal timely based on the date on the notice of appeal and date of receipt three days after the thirty -day period expired). | 3 | 3 |
Barrett, A. v. M&B Medical Billing, Inc.green1 sentence2023Barrett, 291 A.3d at 377-78 (plaintiff entitled to new trial where non-lawyer representative of defendant corporation cross-examined plaintiff and raised issues at trial on behalf of corporation). | 1 | 1 |
Lamp v. Heymangreen1 sentence2017See Lamp v. Heyman, 366 A.2d 882, 885 (Pa. 1976). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Chambersgreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[I]n the interest of fairness, the prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document be deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.”); see also Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 79 (Pa. Super. 1998) (“Where … the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the appeal timely without remand.”) (citation omitted). -4- J-S46001-16 statement of errors complained of on appeal.2 The PCRA court filed a | 1 | 1 |
Sevin v. Kelshawgreen1 sentence1999See Sevin, 611 A2d at 1235 (pleadings must not only apprise the opposing party of the claim being asserted, but must also summarize the essential facts to support the claim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
2 sentences2020“Where, however, the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, [the Court] may find the appeal timely without remand.” Commonwealth v. Cooper, 710 A.2d 76, 79 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Jones, 700 A.2d at 426 n.3).7 Department Employees “concede that the appeal is likely timely 7 This Court applied this reasoning in Polite v. Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 548 C.D. 2019, filed September 23, 2019) (unreported), where an inmate requested documents under the Right-to-Know Law, Act of February 1 2017“Where, however, the opposing party does not challenge the timeliness of the appeal and the prisoner’s assertion of timeliness is plausible, we may find the appeal timely without remand.” Cooper, 710 A.2d at 79 (citing Jones, 700 A.2d at 426 n.3). | 4 | 1998–2020 |
Ruth Ann Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh, Wesley W. Posvar and Trevor Melia, in Their Official and Individual Capacities, Mary-Ann Bishop Coffey
green
2 sentences2017Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989). 2017Bougher v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 882 F.2d 74 (3d Cir. 1989). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Correctional Officers v. Rendell
green
2 sentences2017However, if the opposing party does not challenge “the procedural propriety of another party’s preliminary objections raising res judicata” by filing preliminary objections thereto, the “defect is deemed waived.” Id. 9 subject to the same two-year limitations period. 2017However, if the opposing party does not challenge “the procedural propriety of another party’s preliminary objections raising res judicata” by filing preliminary objections thereto, the “defect is deemed waived.” Id. 9 subject to the same two-year limitations period. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Hess
green
1 sentence2022Hess, 810 A.2d at 1252 ; Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence2022Hess, 810 A.2d at 1252 ; Berg, 6 A.3d at 1008 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Schnurman v. Hillegas
neutral
2 sentences1933It must be borne in mind that a greater latitude is always allowed in the admission of evidence where a fraud is alleged: Schnurman v. Hillegas, 276 Pa. 556, 562 , 120 A. 549 ; Miller v. Central Trust & Sav. 1933It must be borne in mind that a greater latitude is always allowed in the admission of evidence where a fraud is alleged: Schnurman v. Hillegas, 276 Pa. 556, 562 , 120 A. 549 ; Miller v. Central Trust & Sav. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.