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 6 courts 1998–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ditch v. Waynesboro Hospitalgreen2 sentences2017With respect to the relationship between praecipe to enter a judgment of non pros for failure to file a certificate of merit and preliminary objections, we have held that “the filing of preliminary objections is irrelevant when the plaintiff has set forth a professional negligence claim and it is his duty to - 12 - J-A01044-17 obtain a valid certificate of merit within sixty days of filing the complaint.” Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 917 A.2d 317, 325 (Pa. Super. 2007). 2009See Ditch, 917 A.2d at 326 (“Since Ditch raised a professional negligence claim in her original complaint, she was obligated to file a [COM] within sixty days of her filing of the original complaint.”). | 3 | 3 |
Varner v. Classic Communities Corp.green2 sentences2009The issues for the Supreme Court’s review are: (1) Whether the Superior Court’s published decision below is inconsistent with its decision in Varner v. Classic Communities Corporation, 890 A.2d 1068 (Pa.Super.2006) relative to professional negligence claims: a) Whether a cause of action is one of professional negligence if it depends upon expert testimony for elucidation; b) Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that, although expert testimony is required as to defendant's negligence, plaintiff's cause of action was not one of professional negligence? (2) Whether the Superior Court er 2009We affirmed the trial court's refusal to open a judgment of non pros, noting that "one of the most distinguishing features" of a professional negligence claim is "the need, in most cases, for expert testimony that would elucidate complex issues for a jury of laypersons." Varner, 890 A.2d at 1074 . ¶ 3 In the instant matter, the record including Appellant's complaint, the Gilbert defendants' answer and the praecipe for judgment of non pros makes clear that the Gilbert defendants are professional, licensed engineers who were acting in their capacity as such when they designed portions of the O | 1 | 4 |
Bailey v. Tuckergreen1 sentence2018Id. at 114-15 (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Phar-Mor, Inc. Securities Litigationgreen1 sentence2017See, In re Phar-Mor, Inc., supra, 892 F. Supp. 676 at 693; see also, PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc., supra, 899 F. Supp. at 1408 . | 1 | 1 |
PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc. v. Housing Mortgage Corp.green1 sentence2017See, In re Phar-Mor, Inc., supra, 892 F. Supp. 676 at 693; see also, PNC Bank, Kentucky, Inc., supra, 899 F. Supp. at 1408 . | 1 | 1 |
French v. Commonwealth Associates, Inc.green1 sentence2016See French, supra. Next, the claim raises questions of professional judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience, the second test for a professional negligence claim. | 1 | 1 |
Lewis v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTYgreen1 sentence2009Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority, 597 Pa. 57, 58 , 950 A.2d 264, 265 (2008). . | 1 | 1 |
Dobos v. Pennsbury Manorgreen2 sentences2007See id. at 910 ; Dobos v. Pennsbury Manor, 878 A.2d 182, 184-86 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (concluding that complaint raised a professional negligence claim against a licensed health care provider and thus plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit). 2007See id. at 910 ; Dobos v. Pennsbury Manor, 878 A.2d 182, 184-86 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (concluding that complaint raised a professional negligence claim against a licensed health care provider and thus plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit). | 1 | 1 |
Yee v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2007See id. at 910 ; Dobos v. Pennsbury Manor, 878 A.2d 182, 184-86 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (concluding that complaint raised a professional negligence claim against a licensed health care provider and thus plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit). 2007See id. at 910 ; Dobos v. Pennsbury Manor, 878 A.2d 182, 184-86 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (concluding that complaint raised a professional negligence claim against a licensed health care provider and thus plaintiff was required to provide a certificate of merit). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ditch v. Waynesboro Hospital
neutral
2 sentences2011Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 594 Pa. 36 , 934 A.2d 1150 (Pa. 2007) (order). 2011Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 594 Pa. 36 , 934 A.2d 1150 (Pa.2007) (order). | 2 | 2009–2011 |
In Re Petition of Benkoski
neutral
2 sentences2011Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 594 Pa. 36 , 934 A.2d 1150 (Pa. 2007) (order). 2011Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 594 Pa. 36 , 934 A.2d 1150 (Pa.2007) (order). | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Ditch v. Waynesboro Hospital
green
1 sentence2018Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 917 A.2d 317, 322 (Pa. Super. 2007), [aff’d, 17 A.3d 310 (Pa. 2011)]. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Fine v. Checcio
green
1 sentence2018Id. , Note . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lewis v. Court of Common Pleas
green
1 sentence2009Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority, 597 Pa. 57, 58 , 950 A.2d 264, 265 (2008). . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Grad v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP., BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING
neutral
2 sentences2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following ele ments: the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. 2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following elements: *631 the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Metrocorp v. Pearly Whites Dental Center Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following ele ments: the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. 2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following elements: *631 the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dental Care Associates, Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following ele ments: the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. 2009Dental Care Associates Inc. v. Keller Engineers, Inc., 954 A.2d 597 (Pa.Super.2008), appeal denied, 600 Pa. 771 , 968 A.2d 233 (2009). ¶ 11 Under Pennsylvania law, a professional negligence claim must contain the following elements: To prevail in any negligence action, the plaintiff must establish the following elements: *631 the defendant owed [the plaintiff] a duty; the defendant breached the duty; the plaintiff suffered actual harm; and a causal relationship existed between the breach of duty and the harm. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Glenbrook Leasing Co. v. Beausang
green
1 sentence2007Id. at 442 . ¶29 Finally, although we reached the same conclusion as the trial court, we note that our conclusion was reached pursuant to different reasoning and, most significantly, we departed from the trial court’s decision that the statute of limitations on the professional negligence claim accrued on June 30, 2003, i.e., when a judgment of over three million dollars was entered in Pisani’s favor. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
O'Hara v. Randall
green
1 sentence2007Therefore, “the filing of an amended complaint does not afford the plaintiff an additional sixty days in which to file a certificate of merit.” O’Hara, 879 A.2d at 245 . ¶ 25 Ditch attempts to distinguish O’Hara and Hoover from the case at bar by claiming the plaintiffs in those cases specifically asserted medical malpractice claims while she does not raise a professional negligence claim in either her original or amended complaint. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Parkway Corp. v. Edelstein
green
1 sentence2005See: Parkway Corp. v. Edelstein, supra, 861 A.2d at 267-268 . ¶ 9 Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in dismissing Count II of her complaint as it did not set forth a professional negligence claim requiring the filing of a certificate of merit but rather set forth only a general negligence claim based on principles of respondeat superior. ¶ 10 Count I of the complaint filed by appellant set forth a claim for professional negligence against appellee, William W. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Gorski v. Smith
green
1 sentence2004Gorski v. Smith, 812 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Congregation of the Passion v. Touche Ross & Co.
green
1 sentence2003Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche Ross & Co., 636 N.E.2d 503 (Ill. 1994). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Rizzo v. Michener
green
2 sentences1998The authority offered by defendant for this proposition is the case of Rizzo v. Michener, 401 Pa. Super. 47 , 584 A.2d 973 (1990) in which a professional negligence claim was brought against a termite inspection company for the failure to fully examine the premises. 1998The authority offered by defendant for this proposition is the case of Rizzo v. Michener, 401 Pa. Super. 47 , 584 A.2d 973 (1990) in which a professional negligence claim was brought against a termite inspection company for the failure to fully examine the premises. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.