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 1933–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commissiongreen1 sentence2020The right to vote emanates, in part, from the threat and fear of retaliation and persecution by the King, see McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 342-43 (1995), and it is beyond cavil that the process and procedure for conducting a presidential election is largely left to the devices of the individual states. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Edmundsgreen1 sentence2020As Penn stated in the preface to his “Frame of Government of Pennsylvania” in 1682, “ . . . any government is free to the people under it . . . where the laws rule and the people are a party to those laws.”2 In this regard, I believe that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a special duty and obligation: “Like the constitutions of Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, and most of the original 13 Colonies, Pennsylvania’s Constitution was drafted in the midst of the American Revolution, as the first overt expression of independence from the British Crown.” Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887, 896 ( | 1 | 1 |
Eller v. Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences1983Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1, 6 , 198 A.2d 863, 865-866 (1964), quoting Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33 , 190 A.2d 712 (1963). 1983Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1, 6 , 198 A.2d 863, 865-866 (1964), quoting Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33 , 190 A.2d 712 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
Kerr Motor Vehicle Operator License Casegreen2 sentences1972See Moffa Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 278 , 257 A. 2d 6 .15 (1969), and Kerr Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 406 , 249 A. 2d 787 (1968).” Appellant next contends that he has been denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the Foiirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because he received a suspension of ninety days under Section 618(b) (2) whereas he would have been assessed six points and suspended only thirty days for exceeding the speed limit by 28 m.p.h. under Section 619.1(b). 1972See Moffa Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 278 , 257 A. 2d 6 .15 (1969), and Kerr Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 406 , 249 A. 2d 787 (1968).” Appellant next contends that he has been denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the Foiirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because he received a suspension of ninety days under Section 618(b) (2) whereas he would have been assessed six points and suspended only thirty days for exceeding the speed limit by 28 m.p.h. under Section 619.1(b). | 1 | 1 |
Moffa Motor Vehicle Operator License Casegreen1 sentence1972See Moffa Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 214 Pa. Superior Ct. 278 , 257 A. 2d 6 .15 (1969), and Kerr Motor Vehicle Operator License Case, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 406 , 249 A. 2d 787 (1968).” Appellant next contends that he has been denied equal protection of the laws in violation of the Foiirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because he received a suspension of ninety days under Section 618(b) (2) whereas he would have been assessed six points and suspended only thirty days for exceeding the speed limit by 28 m.p.h. under Section 619.1(b). | 1 | 1 |
Shelley v. Kraemergreen2 sentences1958See Shelley, supra.” Nowhere in Shelley v. Kraemer or in Barrows v. Jackson did the Supreme Court denounce as void the restrictive covenants respectively involved in those cases. 1958See Shelley, supra." Nowhere in Shelley v. Kraemer or in Barrows v. Jackson did the Supreme Court denounce as void the restrictive covenants respectively involved in those *453 cases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yick Wo v. Hopkins
green
2 sentences1978However, the court was divided on the question of whether appellees, certain municipalities in Allegheny County, discriminated in the enforcement of the laws in violation of the principle outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). 1978However, the court was divided on the question of whether appellees, certain municipalities in Allegheny County, discriminated in the enforcement of the laws in violation of the principle outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). | 3 | 1933–1978 |
Gundy v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1998Gundy v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 618 , 478 A.2d 139 (1984). 2 Nonetheless, petitioner claims that the Board’s action denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. 1998Gundy v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 82 Pa.Cmwlth. 618 , 478 A.2d 139 (1984). 2 Nonetheless, petitioner claims that the Board’s action denied him equal protection of the laws in violation of the United States Constitution. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McNitt v. Philadelphia
neutral
2 sentences1990We observed that ‘fire marshalls, mine inspectors, factory inspectors, boiler inspectors, and milk inspectors are all charged with law enforcement duties, but they help enforce laws affecting only special subjects, while a policeman’s duty is the enforcement of a all laws whose violation affects the peace and good order of the Community.’ Id. 325 Pa. at 76 , 189 A. at 301 . 1990We observed that ‘fire marshalls, mine inspectors, factory inspectors, boiler inspectors, and milk inspectors are all charged with law enforcement duties, but they help enforce laws affecting only special subjects, while a policeman’s duty is the enforcement of a all laws whose violation affects the peace and good order of the Community.’ Id. 325 Pa. at 76 , 189 A. at 301 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1983Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1, 6 , 198 A.2d 863, 865-866 (1964), quoting Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33 , 190 A.2d 712 (1963). 1983Eller v. Board of Adjustment, 414 Pa. 1, 6 , 198 A.2d 863, 865-866 (1964), quoting Anstine v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 411 Pa. 33 , 190 A.2d 712 (1963). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Commonwealth v. Bonadio
green
2 sentences1980Cf. Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91 , 415 A.2d 47 (1980) (violation of equal protection found where statute made sodomy criminal depending on the defendants’ marital status). *101 We may not consider appellant’s constitutional arguments. 1980Cf. Commonwealth v. Bonadio, 490 Pa. 91 , 415 A.2d 47 (1980) (violation of equal protection found where statute made sodomy criminal depending on the defendants’ marital status). *101 We may not consider appellant’s constitutional arguments. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Cannon v. United States
green
2 sentences1978However, the court was divided on the question of whether appellees, certain municipalities in Allegheny County, discriminated in the enforcement of the laws in violation of the principle outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). 1978However, the court was divided on the question of whether appellees, certain municipalities in Allegheny County, discriminated in the enforcement of the laws in violation of the principle outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Maryland Committee for Fair Representation v. Tawes
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Douglas v. California
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
WMCA, Inc. v. Lomenzo
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Gray v. Sanders
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Wesberry v. Sanders
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Bond v. Floyd
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Reynolds v. Sims
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Baker v. Carr
green
2 sentences1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted §2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Buie Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of 1968The Majority make four major mistakes: (1) The Majority nullify the above quoted § 2-103 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter by blandly and blindly ignoring all the other mandatory provisions and requirements of this section and relying solely on one sentence in this section. *531 (2) The Majority ignore or nullify the Constitution of Pennsylvania. (3) The Majority ignore or nullify recent analogous and controlling decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (4) Worst of all, the Majority ignore or nullify (a) the Equal Protection of the Laws clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitut | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Rohrer v. Milk Control Board
green
2 sentences1961The constitutionality of the Milk Control Law was affirmed on June 26,1936, by an order of the Supreme Court in Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 322 Pa. 257 , 186 Atl. 336 . 1961The constitutionality of the Milk Control Law was affirmed on June 26,1936, by an order of the Supreme Court in Rohrer v. Milk Control Board, 322 Pa. 257 , 186 Atl. 336 . | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.