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 3 courts 2003–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2026The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the Payne test in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, 161 A.3d at 930. 15 excessive noise, and pose a risk of harm if a serious incident occurs. 2026The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled the Payne test in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, 161 A.3d at 930. 15 excessive noise, and pose a risk of harm if a serious incident occurs. | 2 | 4 |
Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.green2 sentences2020If the standard of injury to historic values is to be that expressed by the Commonwealth’s witnesses as an ‘intrusion’ or ‘distraction,’ it becomes difficult to imagine any activity in the vicinity of Gettysburg which would not unconstitutionally harm its historic values.”), and compare with Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462, 464, 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (applying the Payne test, see supra note 8, and noting the petitioner’s allegations that timbering activities undertaken by a private company and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource 2020If the standard of injury to historic values is to be that expressed by the Commonwealth’s witnesses as an ‘intrusion’ or ‘distraction,’ it becomes difficult to imagine any activity in the vicinity of Gettysburg which would not unconstitutionally harm its historic values.”), and compare with Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462, 464, 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (applying the Payne test, see supra note 8, and noting the petitioner’s allegations that timbering activities undertaken by a private company and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource | 2 | 2 |
A. Funk O. Harrison, a minor, by his guardian A. Lee v. Tom Wolf, in his official capacity as Governor of Pennsylvania PA DEPgreen2 sentences2019See, e.g., Funk v. Wolf, 144 A.3d 228, 234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (“The Payne test is particularly applicable in situations where a person challenges a government decision or action.”). 2019See, e.g., Funk v. Wolf, 144 A.3d 228, 234 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (“The Payne test is particularly applicable in situations where a person challenges a government decision or action.”). | 2 | 2 |
Payne v. Kassabgreen2 sentences2018The plurality in Robinson Township II criticized Payne v. Kassab , 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 14 , 312 A.2d 86 (1973), affirmed , 468 Pa. 226 , 361 A.2d 263 (1976), which established a three-part test to determine whether government action complied with the Environmental Rights Amendment. 23 Robinson Township II did not reverse Payne v. Kassab , and this Court continued to apply the Payne test to analyze alleged violations of the Environmental Rights Amendment. 2018The plurality in Robinson Township II criticized Payne v. Kassab , 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 14 , 312 A.2d 86 (1973), affirmed , 468 Pa. 226 , 361 A.2d 263 (1976), which established a three-part test to determine whether government action complied with the Environmental Rights Amendment. 23 Robinson Township II did not reverse Payne v. Kassab , and this Court continued to apply the Payne test to analyze alleged violations of the Environmental Rights Amendment. | 1 | 6 |
Robinson Township v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2021The plurality commented that the Payne test largely neutered the ERA’s protections by limiting the viability of constitutional claims to cases in which “the General Assembly had acted and by the General Assembly's policy choices, rather than by the plain language of the amendment.” Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 966 . 2021The plurality commented that the Payne test largely neutered the ERA’s protections by limiting the viability of constitutional claims to cases in which “the General Assembly had acted and by the General Assembly's policy choices, rather than by the plain language of the amendment.” Robinson Twp., 83 A.3d at 966 . | 1 | 2 |
Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.green2 sentences2020If the standard of injury to historic values is to be that expressed by the Commonwealth’s witnesses as an ‘intrusion’ or ‘distraction,’ it becomes difficult to imagine any activity in the vicinity of Gettysburg which would not unconstitutionally harm its historic values.”), and compare with Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462, 464, 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (applying the Payne test, see supra note 8, and noting the petitioner’s allegations that timbering activities undertaken by a private company and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource 2020If the standard of injury to historic values is to be that expressed by the Commonwealth’s witnesses as an ‘intrusion’ or ‘distraction,’ it becomes difficult to imagine any activity in the vicinity of Gettysburg which would not unconstitutionally harm its historic values.”), and compare with Feudale v. Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc., 122 A.3d 462, 464, 468 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), aff’d, 135 A.3d 580 (Pa. 2016) (applying the Payne test, see supra note 8, and noting the petitioner’s allegations that timbering activities undertaken by a private company and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resource | 1 | 2 |
Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania v. Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2023See 25 A.3d at 447, 450-52 . 2023See 25 A.3d at 447, 450-52 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pursellgreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Pursell, 749 A.2d 911, 913-14 (Pa. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Payne
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Payne v. Kassab
green
2 sentences2018The plurality in Robinson Township II criticized Payne v. Kassab , 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 14 , 312 A.2d 86 (1973), affirmed , 468 Pa. 226 , 361 A.2d 263 (1976), which established a three-part test to determine whether government action complied with the Environmental Rights Amendment. 23 Robinson Township II did not reverse Payne v. Kassab , and this Court continued to apply the Payne test to analyze alleged violations of the Environmental Rights Amendment. 2018The plurality in Robinson Township II criticized Payne v. Kassab , 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 14 , 312 A.2d 86 (1973), affirmed , 468 Pa. 226 , 361 A.2d 263 (1976), which established a three-part test to determine whether government action complied with the Environmental Rights Amendment. 23 Robinson Township II did not reverse Payne v. Kassab , and this Court continued to apply the Payne test to analyze alleged violations of the Environmental Rights Amendment. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Concerned Citizens for Orderly Progress v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2003The Payne analysis became the standard interpretation of Article I, Section 27, see Concerned Citizens for Orderly Progress v. Department of Environmental Resources, 36 Pa.Cmwlth. 192 , 387 A.2d 989 (1978), and including implementing that provision as a purpose of the Acts provides support for regulations balancing environmental harms against social and economic benefits. 2003The Payne analysis became the standard interpretation of Article I, Section 27, see Concerned Citizens for Orderly Progress v. Department of Environmental Resources, 36 Pa.Cmwlth. 192 , 387 A.2d 989 (1978), and including implementing that provision as a purpose of the Acts provides support for regulations balancing environmental harms against social and economic benefits. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.