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.
12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1986–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Palazzolo v. Rhode Islandgreen2 sentences2021Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617 (2001) [discussing Penn Cent. 2011These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the takings clause, which is to prevent the government from “forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” (Citations omitted.) Nolen v. Newtown Township, 854 A.2d 705, 708 (Pa.Commw. 2004) (citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617-18 (2001)). | 3 | 4 |
Nolen v. Newtown Townshipgreen2 sentences2011These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the takings clause, which is to prevent the government from “forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” (Citations omitted.) Nolen v. Newtown Township, 854 A.2d 705, 708 (Pa.Commw. 2004) (citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617-18 (2001)). 2010These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause, which is to prevent the government from “forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” (Citations omitted.) Nolen v. Newtown Township, 854 A.2d 705, 708 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 617-18 (2001)). | 2 | 2 |
Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp.green2 sentences1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c 1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c | 2 | 2 |
MacHipongo Land and Coal Co., Inc. v. Com.green2 sentences2021See generally Machipongo, 799 A.2d at 766 . 17 Where, [however] a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending upon a complex of factors including the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. 2008Machipongo, 569 Pa. at 27, 799 A.2d at 765 (citing Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646 ). 11 .As noted by the Township, the purpose of the review fee is “to protect the public from bearing [the] costs of professional consultant review of private subdivision and land development plans.” Township Brief at 22. 12 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Sorrellgreen2 sentences2005For example, while the Superior Court has noted that “a statute establishing a burden of proof is difficult to classify as either a procedural rule or a rule affecting substantive rights and seems to contain elements of each,” Commonwealth v. Sargent, 349 Pa.Super. 289 , 503 A.2d 3, 6 (1986) (citing Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 500 Pa. 355 , 456 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1982)), the Commonwealth Court has nevertheless used the WCA burden of proof in IOD cases without making any attempt to first establish that the burden of proof is, if fact, a substantive matter. 2005For example, while the Superior Court has noted that “a statute establishing a burden of proof is difficult to classify as either a procedural rule or a rule affecting substantive rights and seems to contain elements of each,” Commonwealth v. Sargent, 349 Pa.Super. 289 , 503 A.2d 3, 6 (1986) (citing Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 500 Pa. 355 , 456 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1982)), the Commonwealth Court has nevertheless used the WCA burden of proof in IOD cases without making any attempt to first establish that the burden of proof is, if fact, a substantive matter. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sargentgreen2 sentences2005For example, while the Superior Court has noted that “a statute establishing a burden of proof is difficult to classify as either a procedural rule or a rule affecting substantive rights and seems to contain elements of each,” Commonwealth v. Sargent, 349 Pa.Super. 289 , 503 A.2d 3, 6 (1986) (citing Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 500 Pa. 355 , 456 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1982)), the Commonwealth Court has nevertheless used the WCA burden of proof in IOD cases without making any attempt to first establish that the burden of proof is, if fact, a substantive matter. 2005For example, while the Superior Court has noted that “a statute establishing a burden of proof is difficult to classify as either a procedural rule or a rule affecting substantive rights and seems to contain elements of each,” Commonwealth v. Sargent, 349 Pa.Super. 289 , 503 A.2d 3, 6 (1986) (citing Commonwealth v. Sorrell, 500 Pa. 355 , 456 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1982)), the Commonwealth Court has nevertheless used the WCA burden of proof in IOD cases without making any attempt to first establish that the burden of proof is, if fact, a substantive matter. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. DeBlasegreen2 sentences1999See Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 542 Pa. 22, 39 , 665 A.2d 427, 435 (1995) (issue of constitutional dimension raised in Brion posed a complex analysis of the nature and reach of the fundamental right to privacy protected by Article I, Section 8). 1999See Commonwealth v. DeBlase, 542 Pa. 22, 39 , 665 A.2d 427, 435 (1995) (issue of constitutional dimension raised in Brion posed a complex analysis of the nature and reach of the fundamental right to privacy protected by Article I, Section 8). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2008Machipongo, 569 Pa. at 27, 799 A.2d at 765 (citing Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646 ). 11 .As noted by the Township, the purpose of the review fee is “to protect the public from bearing [the] costs of professional consultant review of private subdivision and land development plans.” Township Brief at 22. 12 . 2008Machipongo, 569 Pa. at 27, 799 A.2d at 765 (citing Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124 , 98 S.Ct. 2646 ). 11 .As noted by the Township, the purpose of the review fee is “to protect the public from bearing [the] costs of professional consultant review of private subdivision and land development plans.” Township Brief at 22. 12 . | 3 | 2002–2008 |
Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp.
green
2 sentences1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c 1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp.
green
2 sentences1986Cathcart modified the more complex test set forth in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 323 Pa.Super. 130 , 470 A.2d 164 (1983) which required that before the statute of limitations commenced running that there must be (1) knowledge of the injury; (2) knowledge of the operative cause of the injury and (3) knowledge of the causal relationship between the injury and the operative conduct. 1986Cathcart modified the more complex test set forth in Volpe v. Johns-Manville Corp., 323 Pa.Super. 130 , 470 A.2d 164 (1983) which required that before the statute of limitations commenced running that there must be (1) knowledge of the injury; (2) knowledge of the operative cause of the injury and (3) knowledge of the causal relationship between the injury and the operative conduct. | 2 | 1986–1986 |
Sammons v. Civil Service Commission of City of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2005While the City is correct that we have quoted with approval Commonwealth Court precedent that states that the principles in the WCA may be applied in IOD proceedings “where similar substantive issue are involved,” City of Phila., 112 A.2d at 965 (citing Sammons, 673 A.2d at 1002 ), the reality is that courts applying this precedent have not undertaken the complex analysis that is necessary to determine whether a rule is, in fact, substantive or procedural, before concluding whether workers’ compensation law is applicable. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Praisner v. Stocker
green
2 sentences1993This rule as written in 1982 did not explicitly define the term “final order.” Thus, litigants and the courts often had to undertake a complex analysis to determine whether an order was to be considered “final.” See Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332 , 459 A.2d 1255 (1983). 1993This rule as written in 1982 did not explicitly define the term “final order.” Thus, litigants and the courts often had to undertake a complex analysis to determine whether an order was to be considered “final.” See Praisner v. Stocker, 313 Pa.Super. 332 , 459 A.2d 1255 (1983). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
cluster 480739
green
2 sentences1991Comment (d) to section 876 lists six factors as to whether there is substantial assistance, and they are: “(a) the nature of the act encouraged: “(b) the amount of the assistance given by the defendant; “(c) the defendant’s presence or absence at the time of the tort; “(d) the defendant’s relation to the other tortfeasor; “(e) the defendant’s state of mind; and “(f) the foreseeability of the harm that occurred.” See Fassett, 807 F.2d at 1163 . ' The court concluded that in light of the listed factors, liability does not turn upon labels given to the particular actors (i.e., server, supplier, t 1991Comment (d) to section 876 lists six factors as to whether there is substantial assistance, and they are: “(a) the nature of the act encouraged: “(b) the amount of the assistance given by the defendant; “(c) the defendant’s presence or absence at the time of the tort; “(d) the defendant’s relation to the other tortfeasor; “(e) the defendant’s state of mind; and “(f) the foreseeability of the harm that occurred.” See Fassett, 807 F.2d at 1163 . ' The court concluded that in light of the listed factors, liability does not turn upon labels given to the particular actors (i.e., server, supplier, t | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Pastierik v. Duquesne Light Co.
green
2 sentences1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c 1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Price v. Johns-Manville Corp.
green
2 sentences1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c 1986While in Berardi v. Johns-Manville Corp., 334 Pa.Super. 36 , 482 A.2d 1067 (1984) a majority of the panel affirmed the Volpe tri-partite test, we agree with Judge Beck’s statement in Wheeler v. Johns-Manville Corp., 342 Pa.Super. 473, 477 , 493 A.2d 120, 122 (1985): We believe that Cathcart should be followed because it is the most recent holding of the court en banc and Berardi , as a panel decision, cannot overrule the court en banc. *330 Judge Olszewski in his concurring opinion in Berardi, supra, stated that he would apply the less complicated two part test of Cathcart, supra. The recent c | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.