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 2 courts 1994–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fina v. Finagreen2 sentences2019See Fina v. Fina, 737 A.2d 760, 764 (Pa. Super. 1999). 2016Fina v. Fina, 737 A.2d 760, 764 (Pa. Super. 1999) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Accu-Weather, Inc. v. Prospect Communications, Inc.green2 sentences2022See also Accu-Weather, Inc. v. Prospect -6- J-A26018-21 Communication, Inc., 644 A.2d 1251, 1255 (Pa. Super. 1994), (“agreement prohibiting non-written modification may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows an intent to waive the requirement that amendments be in writing”). 2015However, Husband overlooks the following recitation in the Fina decision, which states that there is the well-settled principle that a written contract may be orally modified, even when the contract expressly provides that modifications must be in writing. … Somerset Community Hospital v. Mitchell, 454 Pa. Super. 188 , 685 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 1996).[] As Somerset indicates, “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing.” [Somerse | 1 | 7 |
Somerset Community Hospital v. Allan B. Mitchell & Associates, Inc.green2 sentences2015However, Husband overlooks the following recitation in the Fina decision, which states that there is the well-settled principle that a written contract may be orally modified, even when the contract expressly provides that modifications must be in writing. … Somerset Community Hospital v. Mitchell, 454 Pa. Super. 188 , 685 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 1996).[] As Somerset indicates, “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing.” [Somerse 2015However, Husband overlooks the following recitation in the Fina decision, which states that there is the well-settled principle that a written contract may be orally modified, even when the contract expressly provides that modifications must be in writing. … Somerset Community Hospital v. Mitchell, 454 Pa. Super. 188 , 685 A.2d 141 (Pa. Super. 1996).[] As Somerset indicates, “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing.” [Somerse | 1 | 4 |
Warner Co. v. MacMullengreen1 sentence2026CM Goat, LLC v. Valdez, 318 A.3d 392, 397 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis in CM Goat, LLC) (citing, inter alia, Warner Co. v. MacMullen, 112 A.2d 74, 78 (Pa. 1955)); see also ADP, Inc. v. Morrow Motors, Inc., 969 A.2d 1244, 1249 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by [a] subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing”). | 1 | 1 |
ADP, INC. v. Morrow Motors Inc.green1 sentence2026CM Goat, LLC v. Valdez, 318 A.3d 392, 397 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis in CM Goat, LLC) (citing, inter alia, Warner Co. v. MacMullen, 112 A.2d 74, 78 (Pa. 1955)); see also ADP, Inc. v. Morrow Motors, Inc., 969 A.2d 1244, 1249 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by [a] subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing”). | 1 | 1 |
CM Goat v. Valdez, B.green1 sentence2026CM Goat, LLC v. Valdez, 318 A.3d 392, 397 (Pa. Super. 2024) (emphasis in CM Goat, LLC) (citing, inter alia, Warner Co. v. MacMullen, 112 A.2d 74, 78 (Pa. 1955)); see also ADP, Inc. v. Morrow Motors, Inc., 969 A.2d 1244, 1249 (Pa. Super. 2009) (stating that “an agreement that prohibits non-written modification may be modified by [a] subsequent oral agreement if the parties’ conduct clearly shows the intent to waive the requirement that the amendments be made in writing”). | 1 | 1 |
Pellegrene v. Luthergreen1 sentence2022However, it is established that an oral contract modifying a prior written contract “must be proved by clear, precise and convincing evidence.” Somerset Comm. Hosp., 685 A.2d at 146 (citing Pellegrene v. Luther, 169 A.2d 298, 300 (Pa. 1961)). | 1 | 1 |
Empire Properties, Inc. v. Equireal, Inc.green1 sentence2014However, “where the writing contains an express provision that it constituted the entire contract between the parties and should not be modified except in writing, the party seeking to show subsequent oral modification in the agreement must prove it by clear, precise, and convincing evidence, as in cases where fraud, accident, or mistake is alleged.” Nicolella, supra at 23 ; see also Empire Props. v. Equireal, Inc., 674 A.2d 297 (Pa.Super. 1996) (an agreement prohibiting non-written modification may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement if the parties' conduct clearly shows an intent to w | 1 | 1 |
Brinich v. Jenckagreen1 sentence2013The rights and remedies of the Surety under this Agreement may not be waived or modified except by written amendment signed by the Surety.” A party in the defendants’ position would also have to show that there was an intent to waive this clause, and that by clear and convincing evidence, Brinich v. Jencka, 757 A.2d 388, 399 (Pa. Super. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Douglas v. Bensongreen2 sentences1994Douglas v. Benson, 294 Pa.Super. 119, 127 , 439 A.2d 779, 783 (1982). 1994Douglas v. Benson, 294 Pa.Super. 119, 127 , 439 A.2d 779, 783 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nicolella v. Palmer
green
1 sentence2014However, “where the writing contains an express provision that it constituted the entire contract between the parties and should not be modified except in writing, the party seeking to show subsequent oral modification in the agreement must prove it by clear, precise, and convincing evidence, as in cases where fraud, accident, or mistake is alleged.” Nicolella, supra at 23 ; see also Empire Props. v. Equireal, Inc., 674 A.2d 297 (Pa.Super. 1996) (an agreement prohibiting non-written modification may be modified by a subsequent oral agreement if the parties' conduct clearly shows an intent to w | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Solazo v. Boyle
green
1 sentence2009Fina v. Fina, 737 A.2d 760, 764 (Pa.Super.1999) (citations omitted). 4 Accord Solazo v. Boyle, 365 Pa. 586, 588 , 76 A.2d *1250 179, 180 (1950) (“It is true that a written contract may be modified by parol [... | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.