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.
14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2006–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Day v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2011However, in Robinson, this Court stated that "[i]n determining whether acceptance of a pension should create a presumption that a claimant has terminated her career, it is important to look at the facts involved and the type of pension." Robinson, 4 A.3d at 1137 . "[I]n order to prove that a claimant has retired for purposes of the Henderson standard, the `employer must show, by the totality of the circumstances, that the claimant has chosen not to return to the workforce.'" Day v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 6 A.3d 633, 639 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc) (quoting Robi 2011However, in Robinson, this Court stated that "[i]n determining whether acceptance of a pension should create a presumption that a claimant has terminated her career, it is important to look at the facts involved and the type of pension." Robinson, 4 A.3d at 1137 . "[I]n order to prove that a claimant has retired for purposes of the Henderson standard, the `employer must show, by the totality of the circumstances, that the claimant has chosen not to return to the workforce.'" Day v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 6 A.3d 633, 639 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc) (quoting Robi | 2 | 2 |
S. Henderson v. WP Ventures, Inc. (WCAB)green1 sentence2026Our opinion there acknowledged that application of the personal comfort doctrine is a “case-by-case inquiry and that each matter will depend on its evidence,” as well as the salutary goals of the Act. 269 A.3d at 1278, 1280. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gonzalezgreen1 sentence2022Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted). -5- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen1 sentence2022Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.” Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 731 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citations and quotations omitted). -5- Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (citations omitted); see also Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Reid, A., Apltgreen1 sentence2021See Commonwealth v. Reid, 99 A.3d 470, 486 (Pa. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Newmangreen2 sentences2021See Ford, supra; Newman, supra. Based upon the foregoing, we affirm in part and vacate in part the PCRA court’s Order dismissing Henderson’s PCRA Petition. 2021See Newman, supra; Ruiz, supra. Accordingly, the PCRA court erred in determining that Alleyne did not apply retroactively to Henderson’s case, and we vacate the PCRA court’s Order as to Henderson’s challenge to the legality of his sentence. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fordgreen1 sentence2021See Ford, supra; Newman, supra. Based upon the foregoing, we affirm in part and vacate in part the PCRA court’s Order dismissing Henderson’s PCRA Petition. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fowlergreen1 sentence2021Because “the PCRA provides the sole means for obtaining collateral review, and … any petition filed after the judgment of sentence becomes final will be treated as a PCRA petition,” Commonwealth v. Fowler, 930 A.2d 586, 591 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted), we are constrained to treat his motion to compel as a PCRA petition. | 1 | 1 |
City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences2019In other words, when is a claimant ‘retired’ such that Henderson and its progeny apply?’ Robinson II, 67 A.3d at 1198 (emphasis added). 2019In other words, when is a claimant ‘retired’ such that Henderson and its progeny apply?’ Robinson II, 67 A.3d at 1198 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Danielsgreen1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Daniels, 947 A.2d 795, 798 (Pa. Super. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Pittsburgh v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2011However, in Robinson, this Court stated that "[i]n determining whether acceptance of a pension should create a presumption that a claimant has terminated her career, it is important to look at the facts involved and the type of pension." Robinson, 4 A.3d at 1137 . "[I]n order to prove that a claimant has retired for purposes of the Henderson standard, the `employer must show, by the totality of the circumstances, that the claimant has chosen not to return to the workforce.'" Day v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 6 A.3d 633, 639 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc) (quoting Robi 2011However, in Robinson, this Court stated that "[i]n determining whether acceptance of a pension should create a presumption that a claimant has terminated her career, it is important to look at the facts involved and the type of pension." Robinson, 4 A.3d at 1137 . "[I]n order to prove that a claimant has retired for purposes of the Henderson standard, the `employer must show, by the totality of the circumstances, that the claimant has chosen not to return to the workforce.'" Day v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board (City of Pittsburgh), 6 A.3d 633, 639 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc) (quoting Robi | 4 | 2010–2013 |
Henderson v. Morgan
green
2 sentences2017Shaffer noted with approval Henderson’s directive that ―the validity of a plea may be determined from the ‗totality of the circumstances‘ attendant upon the entry of the plea.‖ Id. (citing Henderson, 426 U.S. at 644 ). 2017Shaffer noted with approval Henderson’s directive that “the validity of a plea may be determined from the ‘totality of the circumstances’ attendant upon the entry of the plea.” Id. (citing Henderson, 426 U.S. at 644 ). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Shaffer
green
2 sentences2017In Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 446 A.2d 591 (Pa. 1982), our Supreme Court cited Henderson’s presumption and observed: ―So also may we presume that, absent an assertion that appellant did not understand the nature of the crimes, counsel explained the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give him notice of that which he admits by entering a plea of guilty.‖ Shaffer, 446 A.2d at 595 . 2017In Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 446 A.2d 591 (Pa. 1982), our Supreme Court cited Henderson’s presumption and observed: ―So also may we presume that, absent an assertion that appellant did not understand the nature of the crimes, counsel explained the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give him notice of that which he admits by entering a plea of guilty.‖ Shaffer, 446 A.2d at 595 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Com. v. Ruiz, J., Jr.
green
1 sentence2021See Newman, supra; Ruiz, supra. Accordingly, the PCRA court erred in determining that Alleyne did not apply retroactively to Henderson’s case, and we vacate the PCRA court’s Order as to Henderson’s challenge to the legality of his sentence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pries v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2008County of Allegheny v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005); Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). 2008County of Allegheny v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005); Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
County of Allegheny v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2008County of Allegheny v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005); Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). 2008County of Allegheny v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Weis), 872 A.2d 263 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005); Pries v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Verizon Pennsylvania), 903 A.2d 136 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Petrone v. Moffat Coal Co.
green
2 sentences2006Claimant argues that “[t]he initial support setting forth the basis for a requirement that retirement from the time of injury job is sufficient to entitle an injured worker to compensation benefits is found in Petrone v. Moffat Coal Company, 427 Pa. 5 , 233 A.2d 891 (1967).” (Claimant Br. at 15.) Claimant argues that, in it, the Supreme Court concluded that a coal miner, who developed black lung disease from occupational hazards associated with his *141 work responsibilities, was forced into retirement because the disease inhibited his ability to use his arms or back. 2006Claimant argues that “[t]he initial support setting forth the basis for a requirement that retirement from the time of injury job is sufficient to entitle an injured worker to compensation benefits is found in Petrone v. Moffat Coal Company, 427 Pa. 5 , 233 A.2d 891 (1967).” (Claimant Br. at 15.) Claimant argues that, in it, the Supreme Court concluded that a coal miner, who developed black lung disease from occupational hazards associated with his *141 work responsibilities, was forced into retirement because the disease inhibited his ability to use his arms or back. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.