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 1830–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Cosnekgreen2 sentences2025See Cosnek, 836 A.2d at 876 ; see also Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Because the order at issue here denies a motion in limine filed by the Commonwealth to preclude the introduction of defense evidence, section 311(d) does not confer us with jurisdiction over the Commonwealth’s appeal.”). 2025See Cosnek, 836 A.2d at 876 ; see also Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Because the order at issue here denies a motion in limine filed by the Commonwealth to preclude the introduction of defense evidence, section 311(d) does not confer us with jurisdiction over the Commonwealth’s appeal.”). | 4 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Minichgreen2 sentences2025See Cosnek, 836 A.2d at 876 ; see also Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Because the order at issue here denies a motion in limine filed by the Commonwealth to preclude the introduction of defense evidence, section 311(d) does not confer us with jurisdiction over the Commonwealth’s appeal.”). 2025See Cosnek, 836 A.2d at 876 ; see also Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Because the order at issue here denies a motion in limine filed by the Commonwealth to preclude the introduction of defense evidence, section 311(d) does not confer us with jurisdiction over the Commonwealth’s appeal.”). | 3 | 3 |
Toy v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYgreen2 sentences2011Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1066-1067 (Pa.Super.2010), citing Commonwealth v. Shearer, 584 Pa. 134, 141 , 882 A.2d 462, 467 (2005); Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411, 420-421 , 836 A.2d 871, 877 (2003). 2010Id. at 141 , 882 A.2d at 467 ; Cosnek, 575 Pa. at 420-21 , 836 A.2d at 877 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. McGinnisgreen1 sentence2008Such an application of the approval requirements is consistent with the clear, unambiguous language of the statute which permits for purposes of trial the introduction of the test results which are conducted on departmentally approved equipment. 515 A.2d at 849-50 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Harnish v. School Dist. of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2000See Harnish, 557 Pa. at 166 , 732 A.2d at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Pricegreen1 sentence2000See Harnish, 557 Pa. at 166 , 732 A.2d at 599 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Metal Edge Box Co. v. American Metal Edge Box Co.
neutral
2 sentences1989It cannot be held to overrule the sound principle, supported by abundant authority, that the mere pendency of a suit upon a claim, will not prevent the same claim from being used as a set-off in another action, or vice versa, that the introduction of a claim as a set-off in one action, mil not create a bar to a suit in another court, in a direct action upon the same claim. *125 92 A. at 44 . 1921“The mere pendency of a suit upon a claim, will not prevent the same claim from being used as a set-off in another action; or vice versa, the introduction of a claim as a set-off in one action, will not create a bar to a suit in another court, in a direct action upon the same claim”: National Metal Edge Box Co. v. American Metal Edge Box Co., 246 Pa. 78, 83 . | 2 | 1921–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Shearer
green
1 sentence2011Commonwealth v. Minich, 4 A.3d 1063, 1066-1067 (Pa.Super.2010), citing Commonwealth v. Shearer, 584 Pa. 134, 141 , 882 A.2d 462, 467 (2005); Commonwealth v. Cosnek, 575 Pa. 411, 420-421 , 836 A.2d 871, 877 (2003). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lamp v. Heyman
green
2 sentences1996FRIEDMAN, J., INTRODUCTION The issue presented in this motion for summary judgment is whether, under the case law established by Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa. 465 , 366 A.2d 882 (1976), plaintiff’s actions in filing and attempting to serve original process have tolled the statute of limitations. 1996FRIEDMAN, J., INTRODUCTION The issue presented in this motion for summary judgment is whether, under the case law established by Lamp v. Heyman, 469 Pa. 465 , 366 A.2d 882 (1976), plaintiff’s actions in filing and attempting to serve original process have tolled the statute of limitations. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Clemens v. Upper Gwynedd Township Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences1972Failure to specify a fundamental error in the Notice of Appeal does not come within our holding in Clemens, et al. v. Upper Gwynedd Township Hearing Board, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 71 , 281 A. 2d 93 (1971), where we said that the omission of the defense of “spot zoning” from the Notice of Appeal precluded the introduction of such a defense at a later time. 1972Failure to specify a fundamental error in the Notice of Appeal does not come within our holding in Clemens, et al. v. Upper Gwynedd Township Hearing Board, 3 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 71 , 281 A. 2d 93 (1971), where we said that the omission of the defense of “spot zoning” from the Notice of Appeal precluded the introduction of such a defense at a later time. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Ott v. DuPlan Silk Corp.
green
1 sentence1968This principle was reaffirmed in Ott v. DuPlan Silk Corporation, 271 Pa. 322 (1921). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Hoffman Lumber Co. v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence1962In the fourth paragraph of his notice of intention to file mechanic’s claim, it is recited that the materials ordered were “for use in the alterations, repairs and additions of the said house. . . .” And while in the introduction to his claim plaintiff states that the materials were furnished in connection with the “erection and construction of said building,” in his claim (paragraph 9), he distinctly states that they were furnished “in and about the alteration and repair of the apartment building numbered 410 East Diamond Avenue.” It is elementary that mechanic’s liens being purely creatures | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Westmoreland Guarantee Building & Loan Ass'n v. Connor
neutral
1 sentence1962In the fourth paragraph of his notice of intention to file mechanic’s claim, it is recited that the materials ordered were “for use in the alterations, repairs and additions of the said house. . . .” And while in the introduction to his claim plaintiff states that the materials were furnished in connection with the “erection and construction of said building,” in his claim (paragraph 9), he distinctly states that they were furnished “in and about the alteration and repair of the apartment building numbered 410 East Diamond Avenue.” It is elementary that mechanic’s liens being purely creatures | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Calder v. Bull
green
1 sentence1830An act of the legislature, says Justice Chase in Calder and Wife v. Bull. 3 Dall. 386 , contrary to the great first principle of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. | 1 | 1830–1830 |
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.