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.
18 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1985–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Nazarethgreen2 sentences2026“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)). 2025“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)). | 7 | 10 |
Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Townshipgreen2 sentences2026“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)). 2025“The de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof which a party seeking a variance must normally bear.” Swemley v. Zoning Hearing Board of Windsor Township, 698 A.2d 160, 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (quoting King v. Zoning Hearing Board of Borough of Nazareth, 463 A.2d 505, 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983)). | 3 | 4 |
Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2018Leonard , 583 A.2d at 13 . 2016We must be mindful that “the de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof that a party seeking a variance must 12 normally bear.” Leonard v. Zoning Hearing Board of Bethlehem, 583 A.2d 11, 13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (holding that a 6.25% deviation from open air requirements was not de minimis despite the presence of other lots in the neighborhood with similar deviations). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Stevensongreen1 sentence2021It is well-established under our precedent that the plain feel doctrine is an extremely narrow doctrine and is “only applicable where the officer conducting the frisk feels an object whose mass or contour makes its criminal character immediately apparent.” Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 744 A.2d 1261, 1265 (Pa. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.green2 sentences2016Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 606 A.2d 444, 448 (Pa. 1992).40 The "misrepresentation can 39 The liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employes [sic], his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death as defined in [77 P .S. § 411(1) and (2)) or occupational disease as defined [77 P.S. § 27.1]. 40 See Mfil:tin, 606 A.2d at 447-48 ("Clearly, when the Legislature enacted the [WCA] in this C 2016Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., 606 A.2d 444, 448 (Pa. 1992).40 The "misrepresentation can 39 The liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employes [sic], his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death as defined in [77 P .S. § 411(1) and (2)) or occupational disease as defined [77 P.S. § 27.1]. 40 See Mfil:tin, 606 A.2d at 447-48 ("Clearly, when the Legislature enacted the [WCA] in this C | 1 | 1 |
Nettleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence2015“The de minimis zoning doctrine authorizes a variance in the absence of a showing of the unnecessary hardship traditionally required to support such relief where the violation is insignificant and the public interest is protected by alternate means.” Nettleton v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Pittsburgh, 828 A.2d 1033, 1038 (Pa. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Grahamgreen2 sentences2014“The ‘plain feel’ doctrine only applies under the limited circumstances where the facts meet the plain view doctrine requirements that the criminal nature of the contraband is immediately apparent, and the officer has a lawful right of access to the object.” Id. “[A] Terry frisk will only support the seizure of contraband -3- J-A23028-14 discovered via the officer's plain feel when the incriminating nature of that contraband is immediately apparent to the officer, based solely on the officer’s initial pat-down of the suspect’s outer garments.” Graham, 721 A.2d at 1082 . 2014The plain feel doctrine is “an extremely narrow exception to the warrant requirement.” Commonwealth v. Graham, 721 A.2d 1075, 1081 (Pa. 1998) citing Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. at 375, 113 S.Ct. at 2137. | 1 | 1 |
American Federation of State County & Municipal Employees Local 2026 v. Borough of State Collegegreen2 sentences1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). 1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences1997Township of Middletown v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Middletown Township, 682 A.2d 900, 902 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1992). 1997Township of Middletown v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Middletown Township, 682 A.2d 900, 902 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
County of Centre v. Mussergreen2 sentences1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). 1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Township of Middletown v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence1997Township of Middletown v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Middletown Township, 682 A.2d 900, 902 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); Constantino v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of the Borough of Forest Hills, 152 Pa.Cmwlth. 258 , 618 A.2d 1193, 1196 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. Pocono Medical Center
green
1 sentence2016Ct. 2011) (quoting Snyder, 656 A.2d at 536 - 37); see 77 P.S. § 481(a).39 However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has seen fit to craft an extremely narrow exception to this rule, which allows an employee to file a common law-based suit against his employer in situations where he can show that the employer has made some sort of fraudulent misrepresentation, which then leads to the aggravation of the employee's pre-existing condition. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers
green
2 sentences2012Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 , 103 S.Ct. 2177 , 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983), discussed infra. Appellant’s microscopically narrow reading of the public policy exception may be more defensible in the private sector, where the employers were subject to labor agreements governed by the National Labor Relations Act, and federal cases have articulated an extremely narrow exception to the essence test. 2012Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 , 103 S.Ct. 2177 , 76 L.Ed.2d 298 (1983), discussed infra. Appellant’s microscopically narrow reading of the public policy exception may be more defensible in the private sector, where the employers were subject to labor agreements governed by the National Labor Relations Act, and federal cases have articulated an extremely narrow exception to the essence test. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Minnesota v. Dickerson
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 378, 113 S.Ct. at 2138-39 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers 1
green
2 sentences1997An extremely narrow exception first set forth in Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1, 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983), the manifestly unreasonable doctrine has been applied to all public employees except police officers and fire fighters. 1997An extremely narrow exception first set forth in Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union of Security Officers # 1, 500 Pa. 213 , 455 A.2d 625 (1983), the manifestly unreasonable doctrine has been applied to all public employees except police officers and fire fighters. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Liquor Cont. Bd. v. Ind. S. Stores U.
green
2 sentences1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). 1997See County of Centre v. Musser, 519 Pa. 380 , 548 A.2d 1194 (1988); Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266 , 553 A.2d 948 (1989); American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Borough of State College, 133 Pa.Cmwlth. 521 , 578 A.2d 48, 51 (1990). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gottlieb v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence1990Gottlieb v. Zoning Hearing Board of Lower Moreland Township, 22 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 365, 349 A.2d 61 (1975). 4 We must also be mindful that the de minimis doctrine is an extremely narrow exception to the heavy burden of proof that a party seeking a variance must normally bear. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Marlowe v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence1990The courts have applied the rule and allowed a variance in a limited number of cases where the violation of the ordinance was a relatively minor one,____ See also Marlowe v. Zoning Hearing Board of Haverford Township, 52 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 224, 415 A.2d 946 (1980). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.