showing of plain error (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

showing of plain error in Pennsylvania

24 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2026 8 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Diament v. Diamentgreen
pasuperct · 2003 · cited in 10 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2003–2025
2 sentences

2025We apply the following principles in assessing such claims. - 10 - J-S15003-25 “Our ability to review the grant of attorney[s'] fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Diament v. Diament, 816 A.2d 256, 270 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2021Our ability to review the grant of attorney[s'] fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Diament v. Diament, 816 A.2d 256, 270 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

810
Habjan v. Habjangreen
pasuperct · 2013 · cited in 5 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2015–2026
2 sentences

2026Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630, 642 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).

2025Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630, 642 (Pa.Super. 2013) (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted).

55
Isralsky v. Isralskygreen
pasuperct · 2003 · cited in 5 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2011–2023
2 sentences

2023An abuse of discretion is “[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion[,] the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.” Id. (citations omitted). “[R]eview of the grant of counsel fees is limited...and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2018An abuse of discretion is “[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion[,] the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.” Id. (citations omitted). “[R]eview of the grant of counsel fees is limited . . . and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

55
Kraisinger v. Kraisingergreen
pasuperct · 2011 · cited in 5 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2013–2023
2 sentences

2023Habjan v. Habjan, 73 A.3d 630, 642 (Pa.Super. 2013) (quoting Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 34 A.3d 168, 175 (Pa.Super. 2011)).

2018Kraisinger v. Kraisinger, 34 A.3d 168, 175 (Pa.Super. 2011).

55
GILMORE BY GILMORE v. Donderogreen
pa · 1990 · cited in 4 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2003–2009
2 sentences

2009Gilmore v. Dondero, 399 Pa. Super. 599 , [606,] 582 A.2d 1106, 1109 (1990).

2009Gilmore v. Dondero, 399 Pa. Super. 599 , [606,] 582 A.2d 1106, 1109 (1990).

44
Holz v. Holzgreen
pasuperct · 2004 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the evidentiary [record] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award. ____________________________________________ 12We offer no opinion as to whether Appellant should be granted the additional requested commission. - 29 - J-A26038-21 Holz v. Holz, 850 A.2d 751, 760 (Pa. Super. 2004) (citations omitted).

11
Sirio v. Siriogreen
pasuperct · 2008 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022“Our ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Sirio v. Sirio, 951 A.2d 1188, 1198 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citations omitted).

2022“Plain error is found where the decision is based on factual findings with no support in the [evidence] or legal factors other than those that are relevant to such an award.” Id. at 1198-99 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Bowser v. Blom green
pa · 2002
2 sentences

2023An abuse of discretion is “[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion[,] the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.” Id. (citations omitted). “[R]eview of the grant of counsel fees is limited...and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

2018An abuse of discretion is “[n]ot merely an error of judgment, but if in reaching a conclusion[,] the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence of record.” Id. (citations omitted). “[R]eview of the grant of counsel fees is limited . . . and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Isralsky v. Isralsky, 824 A.2d 1178, 1192 (Pa.Super. 2003) (citation omitted).

52011–2023
Teodorski v. Teodorski green
pasuperct · 2004
1 sentence

2009“Further, in determining whether the court has abused its discre *900 tion, we do not usurp the court’s duty as fact finder.” Id. ¶ 19 Stated differently, “[o]ur ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.” Diament v. Diament, 816 A.2d 256, 270 (Pa.Super.2003) (citation omitted).

12009–2009
Palladino v. Palladino green
pasuperct · 1998
1 sentence

2004Lastly, Husband contends that the court should have offset the amount Wife received for the $24,826 sur-vivorship benefit with an amount for attorney fees pursuant to Palladino, supra. Our ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.

12004–2004
Martinique Shoes, Inc. v. New York Progressive Wood Heel Co. green
pasuperct · 1966
2 sentences

2003Martinique Shoes, Inc. v. New York Progressive Wood Heel Co., 207 Pa.Super. 404 , 217 A.2d 781 (1966). ¶ 17 Additionally, our ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.

2003Martinique Shoes, Inc. v. New York Progressive Wood Heel Co., 207 Pa.Super. 404 , 217 A.2d 781 (1966). ¶ 17 Additionally, our ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error.

12003–2003
Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co. green
pa · 1962
2 sentences

1982Amendments to pleadings lie within the sound discretion of the court, Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co., 409 Pa. 338 , 186 A.2d 396 (1962), and will not be .overtqrned on appeal absent a showing of plain error.

1982Amendments to pleadings lie within the sound discretion of the court, Yentzer v. Taylor Wine Co., 409 Pa. 338 , 186 A.2d 396 (1962), and will not be .overtqrned on appeal absent a showing of plain error.

11982–1982
BELL v. Shetrom green
pasuperct · 1969
2 sentences

1982Bell v. Shetrom, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 309 , 257 A.2d 323 (1969).

1982Bell v. Shetrom, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 309 , 257 A.2d 323 (1969).

11982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

PA § 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3502 (3) PA § 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2503 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 52 (1990–2026) MI 31 (2004–2023) PA 24 (1982–2026) VT 18 (1988–2025) CO 10 (1975–2018) NJ 10 (2019–2023) DC 6 (1968–1995) UT 6 (2003–2022) IL 6 (1990–2018) GA 5 (2012–2025) NC 4 (1998–2018) VA 4 (2008–2026) MO 4 (1983–2005) WY 4 (1978–2018) SD 4 (1996–2022) NV 4 (2009–2019) TX 3 (2005–2015) MN 3 (1999–2016) DE 2 (1991–2025) CT 2 (2005–2007)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check