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.
17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1924–2026 7 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. Brockington-Winchestergreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Brockington-Winchester, 205 A.3d 1279, 1283-84 (Pa. Super. 2019); Commonwealth v. Jones, 166 A.3d 349, 351 (Pa. Super. 2017).10 ____________________________________________ 10 The trial court suggested that Oaks waived this issue by failing to object to the grant of a mistrial at the first trial and by failing to include a copy of the hearing on his motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Brockington-Winchester, 205 A.3d 1279, 1283-84 (Pa. Super. 2019); Commonwealth v. Jones, 166 A.3d 349, 351 (Pa. Super. 2017).10 ____________________________________________ 10 The trial court suggested that Oaks waived this issue by failing to object to the grant of a mistrial at the first trial and by failing to include a copy of the hearing on his motion to dismiss. | 1 | 1 |
Heraeus Electro Nite Co. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence2025However, in Heraeus Electro, this Court held “service of a copy of the claim petition on the employer, by the Department, is also service on that employer’s carrier.” Id. at 607 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kolanskygreen1 sentence2024See id. | 1 | 1 |
Wesley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2022See Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . 10 Counsel notes that Gillespie’s petition for administrative review challenged only whether the Board had provided the “contemporaneous statement” required under Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017), because he had not yet received a copy of the hearing examiner’s report. | 1 | 1 |
Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2022See Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . 10 Counsel notes that Gillespie’s petition for administrative review challenged only whether the Board had provided the “contemporaneous statement” required under Pittman v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 159 A.3d 466 (Pa. 2017), because he had not yet received a copy of the hearing examiner’s report. | 1 | 1 |
Tallarico Estategreen1 sentence2021Ultimately, Claimant mailed a copy of her claim culpable negligence induces another to believe certain facts to exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that [she] will be prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.” In re Estate of Tallarico, [ 228 A.2d 736, 741 (Pa. 1967)]. | 1 | 1 |
Northwest'n Nat. Bk. v. Com'nw'lth.green1 sentence2021Accord Northwestern National Bank v. Commonwealth, [ 27 A.2d 20 (Pa. 1942)]. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Harrisburg Knights of Columbus Home Ass'ngreen1 sentence2012In Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Harrisburg Knights of Columbus Home Association, 989 A.2d 39, 44 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 626 , 8 A.3d 347 (2010), this court interpreted the phrase “upon any other sufficient cause shown” to mean that Bureau officers have authority to enforce the Chance Act. | 1 | 1 |
City of Philadelphia v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen1 sentence1999Hartman v. State Board of Optometrical Examiners, 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 291 , 507 A.2d 878 (1986) (failure to serve a copy of a proposed report violated petitioner’s due process rights and the case was remanded to allow the filing of exceptions); see also City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Operacz), 706 A.2d 1292 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). | 1 | 1 |
O'NEILL v. Checker Motors Corp.green2 sentences1990See e.g., O’Neill v. Checker Motors, Corp., 389 Pa.Super. 430, 433 , 567 A.2d 680, 681-682 (1989) (appellate court will decline to quash an appeal where effective appellate review is not precluded by the deficiencies of appellant’s brief.). 1990See e.g., O’Neill v. Checker Motors, Corp., 389 Pa.Super. 430, 433 , 567 A.2d 680, 681-682 (1989) (appellate court will decline to quash an appeal where effective appellate review is not precluded by the deficiencies of appellant’s brief.). | 1 | 1 |
Dickson v. Lewandowskigreen2 sentences1982See Anmuth v. Chagon, 295 Pa.Super. 32 , 440 *194 A.2d 1208 (1982) [not obvious from the record that the copy of the rule relied upon by the appellant was a forgery], Cf. Pawol v. Pawol, 293 Pa.Super. 29 , 437 A.2d 974 (1981) [impossible for the appellate court to determine if the lower court considered all relevant factors before entering an order increasing support where there is no transcript of the support hearing], and Dickson v. Lewandowski, 224 Pa.Super. 285 , 307 A.2d 392 (1973) [impossible to determine if the Statute of Limitations had run before the appellant was joined where the rec 1982See Anmuth v. Chagon, 295 Pa.Super. 32 , 440 *194 A.2d 1208 (1982) [not obvious from the record that the copy of the rule relied upon by the appellant was a forgery], Cf. Pawol v. Pawol, 293 Pa.Super. 29 , 437 A.2d 974 (1981) [impossible for the appellate court to determine if the lower court considered all relevant factors before entering an order increasing support where there is no transcript of the support hearing], and Dickson v. Lewandowski, 224 Pa.Super. 285 , 307 A.2d 392 (1973) [impossible to determine if the Statute of Limitations had run before the appellant was joined where the rec | 1 | 1 |
Anmuth v. Chagangreen1 sentence1982See Anmuth v. Chagon, 295 Pa.Super. 32 , 440 *194 A.2d 1208 (1982) [not obvious from the record that the copy of the rule relied upon by the appellant was a forgery], Cf. Pawol v. Pawol, 293 Pa.Super. 29 , 437 A.2d 974 (1981) [impossible for the appellate court to determine if the lower court considered all relevant factors before entering an order increasing support where there is no transcript of the support hearing], and Dickson v. Lewandowski, 224 Pa.Super. 285 , 307 A.2d 392 (1973) [impossible to determine if the Statute of Limitations had run before the appellant was joined where the rec | 1 | 1 |
Pawol v. Pawolgreen2 sentences1982See Anmuth v. Chagon, 295 Pa.Super. 32 , 440 *194 A.2d 1208 (1982) [not obvious from the record that the copy of the rule relied upon by the appellant was a forgery], Cf. Pawol v. Pawol, 293 Pa.Super. 29 , 437 A.2d 974 (1981) [impossible for the appellate court to determine if the lower court considered all relevant factors before entering an order increasing support where there is no transcript of the support hearing], and Dickson v. Lewandowski, 224 Pa.Super. 285 , 307 A.2d 392 (1973) [impossible to determine if the Statute of Limitations had run before the appellant was joined where the rec 1982See Anmuth v. Chagon, 295 Pa.Super. 32 , 440 *194 A.2d 1208 (1982) [not obvious from the record that the copy of the rule relied upon by the appellant was a forgery], Cf. Pawol v. Pawol, 293 Pa.Super. 29 , 437 A.2d 974 (1981) [impossible for the appellate court to determine if the lower court considered all relevant factors before entering an order increasing support where there is no transcript of the support hearing], and Dickson v. Lewandowski, 224 Pa.Super. 285 , 307 A.2d 392 (1973) [impossible to determine if the Statute of Limitations had run before the appellant was joined where the rec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
LaRocca Estate
green
1 sentence2026LaRocca, 246 A.2d at 339-40 . 8 The Commission explained its $802.00 award for costs as follows: Regarding costs, [the] parties were provided with a copy of the hearing transcript via e-mail at the same time the briefing schedule was issued, so the Commission will not reimburse [Petitioner’s c]ounsel with the requested $1,440.80 for the transcript of proceedings. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. McCree
green
1 sentence2021Importantly, the Order warned that “[f]ailure to order the transcript will result in the dismissal of the appeal absent good cause shown.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bennyhoff v. Pappert
green
1 sentence2019Despite Graham’s contention that the trial court erred by not providing a particular jury instruction, Graham “failed to ensure that the certified record contain[ed] a copy of the instruction.” Bennyhoff v. Pappert, 790 A.2d 313 , 318–19 (Pa. Super. 2001). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Webb v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
green
1 sentence2018In granting summary judgment in favor of Federal Signal, the trial court did not need a copy of the standard in order to find that industry standards are minimum standards only, and that plaintiff firefighters could not prevail without expert testimony that the alternative design was effective in protecting motorists and pedestrians. 7 We do not disagree with the learned Dissent that this Court posited in Webb v. Volvo Cars of America, LLC , 148 A.3d 473 (Pa.Super. 2016), that the evidentiary rule prohibiting admission of industry standards might be re-examined post- Tincher . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Timchak
green
1 sentence2018Return the copy to the Court Administrator's Office immediately." Id. 4 That no motion to withdraw the plea was filed in the instant case does not reflect the inapplicability of Parsons . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Tunkhannock Area School Dist. v. Tunkhannock Area Educ. Ass'n
neutral
1 sentence2012In Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Harrisburg Knights of Columbus Home Association, 989 A.2d 39, 44 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 626 , 8 A.3d 347 (2010), this court interpreted the phrase “upon any other sufficient cause shown” to mean that Bureau officers have authority to enforce the Chance Act. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
BELAK v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
neutral
1 sentence2012In Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Harrisburg Knights of Columbus Home Association, 989 A.2d 39, 44 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 626 , 8 A.3d 347 (2010), this court interpreted the phrase “upon any other sufficient cause shown” to mean that Bureau officers have authority to enforce the Chance Act. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hartman v. Commonwealth, State Board of Optometrical Examiners
neutral
2 sentences1999Hartman v. State Board of Optometrical Examiners, 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 291 , 507 A.2d 878 (1986) (failure to serve a copy of a proposed report violated petitioner’s due process rights and the case was remanded to allow the filing of exceptions); see also City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Operacz), 706 A.2d 1292 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). 1999Hartman v. State Board of Optometrical Examiners, 96 Pa.Cmwlth. 291 , 507 A.2d 878 (1986) (failure to serve a copy of a proposed report violated petitioner’s due process rights and the case was remanded to allow the filing of exceptions); see also City of Philadelphia v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Operacz), 706 A.2d 1292 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Niemann
green
2 sentences1986Section 311 of the Act, 77 P.S. §631, mandates that no compensation shall be due under the Act until such notice is given. [3] I would distinguish the facts in this case from those present in Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Niemann, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 377 , 356 A.2d 370 (1976). 1986Section 311 of the Act, 77 P.S. §631, mandates that no compensation shall be due under the Act until such notice is given. [3] I would distinguish the facts in this case from those present in Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. Niemann, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 377 , 356 A.2d 370 (1976). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Hinkle v. HJ Heinz Company
green
2 sentences1986Heinz Co., 462 Pa. 111 , 337 A.2d 907 (1975), in which the Supreme Court altered the concept of injury to include the kind of repetitive trauma such as noises causing hearing losses which had previously been considered to be occupational disease ailments. [2] Although Claimant was deemed disabled as of March 14, 1975, he did not give notice of that disability to the employer until April 19, 1978, the date upon which the employer received a copy of the claim petition. 1986Heinz Co., 462 Pa. 111 , 337 A.2d 907 (1975), in which the Supreme Court altered the concept of injury to include the kind of repetitive trauma such as noises causing hearing losses which had previously been considered to be occupational disease ailments. [2] Although Claimant was deemed disabled as of March 14, 1975, he did not give notice of that disability to the employer until April 19, 1978, the date upon which the employer received a copy of the claim petition. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lanard Axilbund v. Thompson P. Co.
neutral
1 sentence1945A mere volunteer is not entitled to commissions though he brings the parties together and is the efficient cause of producing the sale: Lanard & Axilbund v. Thompson Printing Co., 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 199, 201 .) The petition further avers that claimant was never served with a copy of the rule to show cause why interpleader should not be granted, and had no opportunity to answer the same or to be heard by the court; that this court should not have entered an order against him directing him to interplead without a rule “having been granted on him and without giving him an opportunity to be heard | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Zehner v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.
neutral
1 sentence1924In relation to the fifth and sixth exceptions, we conclude that, under the authority of Zehner v. Lehigh Coal and Navigation Co., 187 Pa. 487 , the failure of the witnesses to sign the depositions is a vital defect. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
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.