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.
584 Pennsylvania opinions name it 9 courts 1898–2026 138 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kelly Buick, Inc. v. Knowlesgreen2 sentences2020Id.; In re R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality). 2020Id.; R.I.S., 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. | 115 | 121 |
In re Adoption of S.P.green2 sentences2026“If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. (citations omitted). 2026“If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. | 12 | 222 |
In the Int. of: D.R.-W., a Minor Appeal of: D.W.green2 sentences2023See id. 2023See id. | 12 | 12 |
In re T.S.M.green2 sentences2026“If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). 2026“If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). | 4 | 90 |
In the Int of: D.C.D./ Appeal of: Clinton Co C&YSgreen2 sentences2023A. “When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a termination of parental rights petition, an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard, accepting the findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record, and reversing only if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” In re D.C.D., 105 A.3d 662 , 670-71 (Pa. 2014). 2017In re D.C.D. 105 A.3d 662, 670-671 (Pa. 2014) (“When reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a termination of parental rights petition, an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard, accepting the findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record, and reversing only if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.”). | 4 | 5 |
Krebs v. United Refining Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2022See Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating that a failure to preserve issues by raising them both in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and statement of questions involved portion of the brief on appeal results in a waiver of those issues). -4- appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. “[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id. 2022See Krebs v. United Refining Co., 893 A.2d 776, 797 (Pa.Super. 2006) (stating that a failure to preserve issues by raising them both in the concise statement of errors complained of on appeal and statement of questions involved portion of the brief on appeal results in a waiver of those issues). -4- appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. “[A] decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will.” Id. | 4 | 4 |
In Re RNJgreen2 sentences2023“Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand.” In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273, 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). 2023“Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court’s decision, the decree must stand.” In re R.N.J., 985 A.2d 273 , 276 (Pa. Super. 2009) (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Salerno v. LaBarrgreen2 sentences2021Brown v. Tunkhannock Twp., 665 A.2d 1318 , 1320 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (citing Salerno v. LaBarr, 632 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). 2004Salerno v. LaBarr, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 99 , 632 A.2d 1002 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 537 Pa. 655 , 644 A.2d 740 (1994). | 2 | 27 |
Powell v. EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.green2 sentences2017In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. 2017In re: R.J.T., 9 A.3d 1179, 1190 (Pa. 2010) If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. | 2 | 8 |
In Re KTELgreen2 sentences2018See In re K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 747 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that there is no per se rule mandating quashal or dismissal of a defective notice of appeal in children’s fast track cases). -4- J-S25030-18 supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. 2017The trial court’s decision, however, should not be reversed merely because _______________________ (Footnote Continued) K.T.E.L., 983 A.2d 745, 748 (Pa.Super. 2009) (holding that an appellant’s failure to comply strictly with Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a)(2)(i) did not warrant waiver of her claims, as there was no prejudice to any party). | 2 | 2 |
Stauffer v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.green2 sentences2017H[A) decision may be reversed for an abuse of discretion only upon demonstration of manifest unreasonableness, partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will." Id. 2017STANDARD OF REVIEW When reviewing a trial court's decision to grant or deny a termination of parental rights petition, an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard, accepting the trial court's findings of fact and credibility determinations if they are supported by the record, and reversing only if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion. in re S.P., 47 A. 2d 817, 826 (Pa. 201 l). | 2 | 2 |
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.green2 sentences2026This Court will not overturn the court’s certification decision simply because evidence in the record could support the contrary result; rather, we will find an abuse of discretion only if the court made an error of law or “exercised unreasonable judgment, or based its decision on ill will, bias, or prejudice[.]” Samuel Bassett, 34 A.3d at 15 (citation omitted). 2015Id.; In re R.I.S., [ 613 Pa. 371, 455 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. | 1 | 5 |
In the Int. of: M v. Appeal of: Appeal of: R.M.green2 sentences2019If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Interest of M.V., 203 A.3d 1104, 1111 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). 4 Mother does not dispute that termination was warranted under Section 2511(a); she instead argues that section (b) was not met. 2019“If the factual findings are supported, appellate courts review to determine if the trial court made an error of law or abused its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
EOJ v. Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill Countygreen2 sentences2002See E.O.J., Inc. v. Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill County, 780 A.2d 814 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). 5 .In support of her position, Glover relies on the cases of Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Center of Beaver County, Inc., Rochester Division, 487 Pa. 266 , 409 A.2d 343 (1979) and Cossell v. Connellsville Township Board of Supervisors, 747 A.2d 977 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000). 2001E.O.J., Inc. v. Tax Claim Bureau of Schuylkill County, 780 A.2d 814 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). | 1 | 2 |
| In the Interest of: S.K.L.R.; Apl of: K.H.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Kennedygreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re: K.R., minor, Appeal of: K.R.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re: M.M., Appeal of: R.H.green | 1 | 1 |
| Custer v. Cochrangreen | 1 | 1 |
| K.B. v. Tinsley, T.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Woodsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re: M.Z.T.M.W., a minor, Appeal of: M.W.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Walker, T.red | 1 | 1 |
| Dong Yuan Chen v. Saidigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Banks v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehiclesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. McDonoughgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Eggersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Gasbarini v. Medical Center of Beaver County, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cossell v. Connellsville Township Board of Supervisorsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lilly v. Markvangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gey v. Beckgreen | 1 | 1 |
| COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Monsaygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Taylor v. Heffnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santobello v. New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Vekoviusgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kerr Motor Vehicle Operator License Casegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Moffa Motor Vehicle Operator License Casegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re R.I.S.
neutral
2 sentences2021Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. 2021Id.; R.I.S., [ 614 Pa. 275, 284 ,] 36 A.3d 567, 572 (Pa. 2011) (plurality opinion)]. | 66 | 2014–2021 |
COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Marpoe
green
2 sentences2003Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Marpoe, 157 Pa.Cmwlth. 603 , 630 A.2d 561 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 536 Pa. 648 , 639 A.2d 34 (1994). 2003Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. Marpoe, 157 Pa.Cmwlth. 603 , 630 A.2d 561 (1993), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 536 Pa. 648 , 639 A.2d 34 (1994). | 6 | 1996–2003 |
King Et Al., Appellants, v. Brillhart
green
2 sentences1939If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not compiled with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 ) ; this practice still obtains, notwithstanding section 21 of the act, which ‘is not intended to provide a new or exclusive remedy, applicable to defective pleadings; it is simply a general enabling provision to be read in connection with the rest of the act’: Parry v. First National B 1936When and how it may be applied was clearly set forth by Mr. Justice Simpson, speaking for the Supreme Court, in Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 401, 402 , 116 A. 364 , as follows: “If appellee was of opinion the averment of the statement did not ‘conform to the provisions’ of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, he should have moved to strike it off, as provided by section 21 1 If. he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if t | 6 | 1922–1939 |
Parry v. First National Bank
green
2 sentences1939If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not compiled with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 ) ; this practice still obtains, notwithstanding section 21 of the act, which ‘is not intended to provide a new or exclusive remedy, applicable to defective pleadings; it is simply a general enabling provision to be read in connection with the rest of the act’: Parry v. First National B 1936When and how it may be applied was clearly set forth by Mr. Justice Simpson, speaking for the Supreme Court, in Rhodes v. Terheyden, 272 Pa. 397, 401, 402 , 116 A. 364 , as follows: “If appellee was of opinion the averment of the statement did not ‘conform to the provisions’ of the Practice Act of May 14, 1915, P. L. 483, he should have moved to strike it off, as provided by section 21 1 If. he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if t | 4 | 1922–1939 |
Hutchinson Baking Co. v. Marvel
green
2 sentences1939“The question to be decided under section 20 of the act, which provides only ‘a substitute . .. for the common law demurrer’ (Hutchinson Baking Co. v. Marvel, 270 Pa. 378, 381 ), is not whether the statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial, but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a ‘question of law,’ that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. 1936The question to be decided under section 20 of the act, which provides only ‘a substitute...... *558 for the common law demurrer’ (Hutchinson Baking Co. v. Marvel, 270 Pa. 378, 381 ), is not whether the statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial, but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a ‘question of law,’ that plaintiff is not entitled to recover. | 3 | 1922–1939 |
Brown v. Tunkhannock Township
green
2 sentences2022Brown v. Tunkhannock Township, 665 A.2d 1318 , 1320 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 2021Brown v. Tunkhannock Twp., 665 A.2d 1318 , 1320 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (citing Salerno v. LaBarr, 632 A.2d 1002 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Laudig v. Laudig
green
2 sentences2017Laudig, 624 A.2d at 653 . 2017Laudig, 624 A.2d at 653 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Jones v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles
neutral
2 sentences2004Jones v. Dep’t of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 723 A.2d 1090 (Pa. Cmwlth.1999). *296 The Department contends that the trial court erred by sustaining Banks’ appeal where the lapse in financial responsibility lasted longer than 31 days. 2002Jones v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 723 A.2d 1090 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999). . | 2 | 2002–2004 |
Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital
green
2 sentences2000Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital, 714 A.2d 539 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998), appeal denied, 558 Pa. 623 , 737 A.2d 744 , (1999). 1999Gordon v. Lewistown Hospital, 714 A.2d 539 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), appeal denied, -Pa. - — , 737 A.2d 744 (Pa. 1999). | 2 | 1999–2000 |
Dillon v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
2 sentences1999Dillon v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 679 A.2d 291 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). . 1998Dillon v. Department of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 679 A.2d 291 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 5 . | 2 | 1998–1999 |
Mylett v. Adamsky
green
2 sentences1993Mylett v. Adamsky, 139 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 637 , 591 A.2d 341 (1991). 1993Mylett v. Adamsky, 139 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 637 , 591 A.2d 341 (1991). | 2 | 1992–1993 |
Kidder Elevator Interlock Co. v. Muckle
neutral
2 sentences1923If he believed it did “conform to the provisions” of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act......is not whether the statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a “question of law,” that plai 1922If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act.....is not whether the. statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a ‘question of law,’ that plai | 2 | 1922–1923 |
Commonwealth Finance Corp. v. Ferrero
neutral
2 sentences1923If he believed it did “conform to the provisions” of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act......is not whether the statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a “question of law,” that plai 1922If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act.....is not whether the. statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a ‘question of law,’ that plai | 2 | 1922–1923 |
Moore v. Luzerne County
green
2 sentences1923If he believed it did “conform to the provisions” of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act......is not whether the statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a “question of law,” that plai 1922If he believed it did ‘conform to the provisions’ of the act, but was not sufficiently specific, he should have taken a rule for a more specific statement, and followed this with a motion for a non pros, if the court made his rule absolute and its order was not complied with (King v. Brillhart, 271 Pa. 301, 305 );......The question to be decided under section 20 of the act.....is not whether the. statement is so clear, in both form and specification, as to entitle plaintiff, without amendment, to proceed to trial; but whether, upon the facts averred, it shows, as a ‘question of law,’ that plai | 2 | 1922–1923 |
Habbyshaw v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2025Habbyshaw v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 683 A.2d 1281 , 1282 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). 6 in the possession or custody of a police officer shall not be released to the owner or person legally entitled to possession of a seized vehicle pursuant to this section until such time as a replacement [VIN] plate has been obtained. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Batterman, C. v. Santo, S. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In the Int. of: H.H.N., Appeal of: D.B.
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| In the Interest of R.J.T. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| COM., DEPT. OF ENVIR. RESOURCES v. Auresto green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re: Adoption of C.D.R., Appeal of: R.R. red | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Commonwealth v. O'Black green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Adoption of K.J. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hopkins v. Erie Insurance green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Ganster v. Western Pennsylvania Water Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Fauceglia v. Harry green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| East Lampeter Township v. County of Lancaster green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Pappas v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Shimko v. Com., Dept. of Transp. neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Curtis v. Kline green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| L.J.S. v. State Ethics Commission green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Fedorko Properties, Inc. v. Millcreek Township School District green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Koller v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Pray v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehicles green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| In Re B. green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Sinwell green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Lycoming Burial Vault Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Gilbert v. Zoning Hearing Board green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Evanson v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Penn Hills School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Commonwealth ex rel. Mullins v. Maroney neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.