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.
15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1922–1993 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. Rohmgreen2 sentences1934Thus it is said in Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. Rohm, 272 Pa. 24 , 27: “The allowance of amendments rests in the reasonable discretion of the court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed. 1933The allowance of amendments rests in the sound discretion of the court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed: see Berlin Smokeless Coal & Clay Co. v. Rohm, 272 Pa. 24, 27 ; Piesneski v. Stepien, 300 Pa. 161, 163 . | 1 | 3 |
Schaffer v. Larzeleregreen2 sentences1975See Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 406-07 , 189 A.2d 267, 270 (1963); Trabue v. Walsh, 318 Pa. 391 , 177 A. 815 (1935). 1975See Schaffer v. Larzelere, 410 Pa. 402, 406-07 , 189 A.2d 267, 270 (1963); Trabue v. Walsh, 318 Pa. 391 , 177 A. 815 (1935). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trabue v. Walsh
green
2 sentences1993In the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed: Trabue v. Walsh, 318 Pa. 391 , 177 A. 815 (1935). 1993In the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed: Trabue v. Walsh, 318 Pa. 391 , 177 A. 815 (1935). | 6 | 1963–1993 |
Arzinger v. Baughman
green
2 sentences1993However, the right to amend should be liberally granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is an error of law or resulting prejudice to the adverse party: Arzinger v. Baughman, 348 Pa. 84 , 34 A.2d 64 (1943); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor, 399 Pa. 324 , 159 A.2d 692 (1960). 1993However, the right to amend should be liberally granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is an error of law or resulting prejudice to the adverse party: Arzinger v. Baughman, 348 Pa. 84 , 34 A.2d 64 (1943); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor, 399 Pa. 324 , 159 A.2d 692 (1960). | 5 | 1963–1993 |
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor
green
2 sentences1993However, the right to amend should be liberally granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is an error of law or resulting prejudice to the adverse party: Arzinger v. Baughman, 348 Pa. 84 , 34 A.2d 64 (1943); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor, 399 Pa. 324 , 159 A.2d 692 (1960). 1993However, the right to amend should be liberally granted at any stage of the proceedings unless there is an error of law or resulting prejudice to the adverse party: Arzinger v. Baughman, 348 Pa. 84 , 34 A.2d 64 (1943); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Taylor, 399 Pa. 324 , 159 A.2d 692 (1960). | 5 | 1963–1993 |
Piesneski v. Stepien
neutral
2 sentences1950Co., 234 Pa. 321 , 83 A. 318 . ‘The allowance of amendments rests in the reasonable discretion of the Court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed’: Piesneski v. Stepien, 300 Pa. 161, 163 , 150 A. 296 ... ‘. . . 1950Co., 234 Pa. 321 , 83 A. 318 . ‘The allowance of amendments rests in the reasonable discretion of the Court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed’: Piesneski v. Stepien, 300 Pa. 161, 163 , 150 A. 296 ... ‘. . . | 3 | 1933–1950 |
Hileman v. Hileman
green
2 sentences1939The allowance of an amendment rests in the reasonable discretion of the court and in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed: Hileman v. Hileman, 172 Pa. 323 ; Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Goal Co. v. Pitts- *99 ton C. 1937The allowance of an amendment rests in the reasonable discretion of the court and in the absence of plain error its action will not be reversed: Hileman v. Hileman, 172 Pa. 323 ; Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Co. v. Pittston C. | 3 | 1935–1939 |
Hoofstitler v. Hostetter
neutral
2 sentences1934In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered [and this was the case here, also], to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 .” So also we *535 said in Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., 305 Pa. 364 , 368: “The general principle is that nothing can call forth the court of chancery into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence......The doctrine is founded upon the equity maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their 1922In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered, to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 . | 2 | 1922–1934 |
Muehlhof v. Boltz
green
2 sentences1934In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered [and this was the case here, also], to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 .” So also we *535 said in Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., 305 Pa. 364 , 368: “The general principle is that nothing can call forth the court of chancery into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence......The doctrine is founded upon the equity maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their 1922In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered, to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 . | 2 | 1922–1934 |
Tyrrill v. Lamb
green
1 sentence1950It should not be allowed so as to deprive the opposite party of any val uable right’: Tyrrill v. Lamb, 96 Pa. 464, 467 . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Joynes v. Pennsylvania Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1950Co., 234 Pa. 321 , 83 A. 318 . ‘The allowance of amendments rests in the reasonable discretion of the Court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed’: Piesneski v. Stepien, 300 Pa. 161, 163 , 150 A. 296 ... ‘. . . 1950Co., 234 Pa. 321 , 83 A. 318 . ‘The allowance of amendments rests in the reasonable discretion of the Court, and, in the absence of plain error, its action will not be reversed’: Piesneski v. Stepien, 300 Pa. 161, 163 , 150 A. 296 ... ‘. . . | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Cohen v. Shapiro
green
1 sentence1934In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered [and this was the case here, also], to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 .” So also we *535 said in Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., 305 Pa. 364 , 368: “The general principle is that nothing can call forth the court of chancery into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence......The doctrine is founded upon the equity maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Riley v. Boynton Coal Co.
green
1 sentence1934In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered [and this was the case here, also], to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 .” So also we *535 said in Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., 305 Pa. 364 , 368: “The general principle is that nothing can call forth the court of chancery into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence......The doctrine is founded upon the equity maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Herman v. Rinker
neutral
1 sentence1934In Herman v. Rinker, 106 Pa. 121 , a petition to open a judgment entered by confession was allowed and at the trial of the case the plaintiff moved to amend his declaration. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Kinter v. Commonwealth Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1934In the present case it was amply justified in refusing, after findings of fact and law had been made and the decree nisi entered [and this was the case here, also], to permit the amendment asked for: Muehlhof v. Boltz, 215 Pa. 124 ; Hoofstitler v. Hostetter, 172 Pa. 575 .” So also we *535 said in Riley v. Boynton Coal Co., 305 Pa. 364 , 368: “The general principle is that nothing can call forth the court of chancery into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence......The doctrine is founded upon the equity maxim that ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.