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.
13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1951–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Borough of Green Tree v. Board of Property Assessments, Appeals & Reviewgreen1 sentence2017The reason behind the rule that a facial challenge to a statute’s constitutionality need not be raised before an administrative agency is that “the determination of the constitutionality of enabling legislation is not a function of the administrative agencies thus enabled.” Borough of Green Tree v. Board of Property Assessments, 328 A.2d 819, 825 (Pa. 1974). | 1 | 1 |
Philadelphia County Medical Society v. Kaisergreen2 sentences2016PCMS, 699 A.2d at 806 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted). 2016PCMS, 699 A.2d at 806 (citations omitted) (footnotes omitted). | 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. Stanley
green
2 sentences2015Commonwealth v. Stanley, 398 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1979); Roman, supra. . . . -7- J-S08017-15 We have noted in the past that our cases have not established a per se rule requiring a new trial for every prejudicial reference of this type. 1980Commonwealth v. Stanley, 484 Pa. 2 , 398 A.2d 631 (1979); Commonwealth v. Roman, supra. However, when such evidence is offered to prove matters other than criminal activity, the trial judge, in his discretion, may admit it. | 2 | 1980–2015 |
Canonsburg General Hospital v. Department of Health
green
2 sentences1997The reason behind this requirement is that judicial review, absent a valid administrative adjudication or proper record, is a “premature interruption of the administrative process.” Id, citing, Canonsburg General Hospital v. Department of Health, 492 Pa. 68 , 422 A.2d 141 (1980). 1997The reason behind this requirement is that judicial review, absent a valid administrative adjudication or proper record, is a “premature interruption of the administrative process.” Id, citing, Canonsburg General Hospital v. Department of Health, 492 Pa. 68 , 422 A.2d 141 (1980). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Turner v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
green
2 sentences2019When the governing statute has "no specific provisions" by which to obtain an administrative hearing on the agency's action, it is the "the Administrative Agency Law [that] provides a default mechanism for the provision of hearings and for appeals from administrative adjudications, which comport with due process requirements." Id. 2019"The reason behind this requirement is that judicial review without a proper record or a valid administrative adjudication is a premature interruption of the administrative process." Id. at 946 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Roman
green
1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. Stanley, 398 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1979); Roman, supra. . . . -7- J-S08017-15 We have noted in the past that our cases have not established a per se rule requiring a new trial for every prejudicial reference of this type. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mediq, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1999Mediq, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Steskal), 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 633 A.2d 651 (1993). 7 The reason behind this requirement is to give an employer the opportunity to present a defense by way of legal argument or countervailing evidence. 1999Mediq, Inc. v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Steskal), 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 633 A.2d 651 (1993). 7 The reason behind this requirement is to give an employer the opportunity to present a defense by way of legal argument or countervailing evidence. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Daugherty v. WCAB (JONES & L. STEEL C.)
green
2 sentences1999Daugherty v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 97 Pa. Cmwlth. 142, 510 A.2d 147 (1986). 1999Daugherty v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 97 Pa. Cmwlth. 142, 510 A.2d 147 (1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Kudoba
green
2 sentences1972Co. v. Kudoba, 323 Pa. 30, 186 Atl. 793 (1936), at pp. 35-36, where we said: “If an applicant for such insurance is examined by a medical representative of the company, and is ‘passed,’ and a policy thereupon issues, he is certainly justified in assuming, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, that the company has satisfied itself as to his state of health, and that he can rest confident in the belief that he has obtained a valid policy of insurance upon his life. 1972Co. v. Kudoba, 323 Pa. 30, 186 Atl. 793 (1936), at pp. 35-36, where we said: “If an applicant for such insurance is examined by a medical representative of the company, and is ‘passed,’ and a policy thereupon issues, he is certainly justified in assuming, in the absence of any fraud or misrepresentation on his part, that the company has satisfied itself as to his state of health, and that he can rest confident in the belief that he has obtained a valid policy of insurance upon his life. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Osborn v. Bank of United States
green
2 sentences1970As explained by Chief Justice Marshall in the opinion of Osborn v. President, etc., United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738 , 22 U.S. 738 , 6 L. 1970As explained by Chief Justice Marshall in the opinion of Osborn v. President, etc., United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738 , 22 U.S. 738 , 6 L. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Plazak v. Allegheny Steel Company
green
2 sentences1956Only in clear cases of fraud or concealment has defendant been estopped from invoking the bar of the statute: Plazak v. Allegheny Steel Co., 324 Pa. 422 , 188 Atl. 130 ; Schwab v. Cornell, 306 Pa. 536 . 1956Only in clear cases of fraud or concealment has defendant been estopped from invoking the bar of the statute: Plazak v. Allegheny Steel Co., 324 Pa. 422 , 188 Atl. 130 ; Schwab v. Cornell, 306 Pa. 536 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Schwab v. Cornell
green
1 sentence1956Only in clear cases of fraud or concealment has defendant been estopped from invoking the bar of the statute: Plazak v. Allegheny Steel Co., 324 Pa. 422 , 188 Atl. 130 ; Schwab v. Cornell, 306 Pa. 536 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Crusco v. Strunk Steel Co.
green
1 sentence1954He states, page 111: “The maxim that fraud vitiates everything is applicable to the service of process obtained by decoying or enticing one into a jurisdiction for the purpose of securing service.” This seems to be the foundation of the rule in Pennsylvania for, in Crusco v. Strunk Steel Co. et al., 365 Pa. 326 , it was the basis for setting aside service upon an individual who was brought into the court’s jurisdiction by criminal process and there served with a summons in a civil proceedings. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Mumper's Appeal
green
2 sentences1951The reason behind the rule was first announced in Mumper’s Appeal, 3 W. & S. 441 (1842), by Mr. Justice Kennedy. 1951The reason behind the rule was first announced in Mumper's Appeal, 3 W. & S. 441 (1842), by Mr. Justice KENNEDY. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.