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.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2025 6 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. Kinggreen2 sentences2022See Commonwealth v. King, 430 A.2d 990, 991 (Pa.Super. 1981) (holding that Collins overruled those cases holding that a written notice claim could not be waived by failure to raise it at the revocation hearing sub silentio). 2015While earlier cases announced the position that this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Alexander, 331 A.2d 836 , 839 (Pa. 1974) (holding that the failure of an alleged probation violator to raise lack of notice at a revocation hearing does not result in waiver of the issue), a panel of this Court in King, 430 A.2d at 991 , held that Collins overruled, sub silentio, those cases holding that a written-notice claim could not be waived if it was not raised at the revocation proceeding. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2025As the Commonwealth candidly — and correctly — observes, “this Court has consistently held that the written notice requirement needs to be strictly followed.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 10 (emphasis added) (citing Commonwealth v. Harris, 380 A.2d 471, 472 (Pa. Super. 1977) (holding that the “requirement of written notice is a simple, straightforward requirement, which the Commonwealth can readily meet, and must meet”)). | 1 | 1 |
Wolff v. McDonnellgreen1 sentence2024See Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (citing to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Robson v. BIESTERgreen1 sentence2024See Robson v. Biester, 420 A.2d 9, 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (citing to Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisorygreen1 sentence2024Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction may be issued only after a written notice and hearing.” Constantakis, 275 A.3d at 1017 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp.green1 sentence2019By definition, “shall” is mandatory, Oberneder v. Link Computer Corp., 696 A.2d 148, 150 (Pa. 1997), and the addition of this new language highlights the mandatory, and not permissive, nature of the written notice requirement. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chambers v. Todd Steel Pickling, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017In our analysis, we noted that these facts were distinguishable from those in Chambers v. Todd Steel Pickling, Inc., 470 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 1983), where “we found that estoppel may lie against the true owner of property, despite the absence of the written notice requirement of section 1303(d), where facts have been withheld and where the property owner did not act in good faith throughout the transaction.” Key Auto. 1994Id., 323 Pa.Super. at 129 , 470 A.2d at 164 . | 2 | 1994–2017 |
Soja v. Factoryville Sportsmen's Club
green
2 sentences2022Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction may be issued only after a written notice and hearing.” Soja, 522 A.2d at 1131 (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1531(a)). 2022Ordinarily, a preliminary injunction may be issued only after a written notice and hearing.” Soja, 522 A.2d at 1131 (citing Pa.R.Civ.P. 1531(a)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Walthour v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 764 . 10 On appeal, we reversed. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Stevens v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 493 . 2 In response to PennDOT’s motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff contended that the written notice requirement of the pothole exception should not apply because “what occurred was that [Plaintiff] stepped down off the bus with her left foot and then stepped onto the brick with her right foot twisted which caused her to fall. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Goldstein v. Goldstein
green
1 sentence2015While earlier cases announced the position that this issue may be raised for the first time on appeal, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Alexander, 331 A.2d 836 , 839 (Pa. 1974) (holding that the failure of an alleged probation violator to raise lack of notice at a revocation hearing does not result in waiver of the issue), a panel of this Court in King, 430 A.2d at 991 , held that Collins overruled, sub silentio, those cases holding that a written-notice claim could not be waived if it was not raised at the revocation proceeding. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Cressman v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2011The trial court relied upon Cressman v. Department of Transportation, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 348 , 538 A.2d 992 (1988), to support its view that “general allegations of road conditions are insufficient to constitute notice under the pothole exception.” (Trial Court Op. at 4.) Noting that Senator Logan’s Letter made no reference to potholes and did not articulate a specific section of State Route 837 that would coincide with the area where the accident occurred, the trial court concluded that the actual written notice requirement of Section 8522(b)(5) of the Act required “evidence that [the] written no 2011The trial court relied upon Cressman v. Department of Transportation, 114 Pa.Cmwlth. 348 , 538 A.2d 992 (1988), to support its view that “general allegations of road conditions are insufficient to constitute notice under the pothole exception.” (Trial Court Op. at 4.) Noting that Senator Logan’s Letter made no reference to potholes and did not articulate a specific section of State Route 837 that would coincide with the area where the accident occurred, the trial court concluded that the actual written notice requirement of Section 8522(b)(5) of the Act required “evidence that [the] written no | 1 | 2011–2011 |
First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman
green
2 sentences1988Moreover, though no previous appellate authority has directly addressed this question, we find that language utilized by our Supreme Court in First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 515 Pa. 85 , 527 A.2d 100 (1987), supports our conclusion that once the debtor has complied with the written notice requirement and has shown that the judgment has been satisfied, the debtor is automatically entitled to liquidated damages calculated in accordance with the statutory formula. 1988Moreover, though no previous appellate authority has directly addressed this question, we find that language utilized by our Supreme Court in First National Consumer Discount Co. v. Fetherman, 515 Pa. 85 , 527 A.2d 100 (1987), supports our conclusion that once the debtor has complied with the written notice requirement and has shown that the judgment has been satisfied, the debtor is automatically entitled to liquidated damages calculated in accordance with the statutory formula. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
United States Ex Rel. Excavation Construction, Inc. v. Glenn-Stewart-Pinckney Builders & Developers, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988Excavation Construction, Inc. v. Glenn-Stewart-Pinckney Builders and Developers, Inc., 388 F.Supp. 289 (D.Del.1975). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Kates
green
2 sentences1980Although it is true that due process requires a probationer receive written notice of the claimed probation violations prior to commencement of the revocation hearing, Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102 , 305 A.2d 701 (1973), appellant here does not base his alleged denial of due process upon a failure on the part of the Commonwealth to comply with this written notice requirement. 1980Although it is true that due process requires a probationer receive written notice of the claimed probation violations prior to commencement of the revocation hearing, Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102 , 305 A.2d 701 (1973), appellant here does not base his alleged denial of due process upon a failure on the part of the Commonwealth to comply with this written notice requirement. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.