12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1920–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lehn's Court Management LLC v. My Mouna Inc.green2 sentences2021Under these circumstances, i.e., where an appellant cannot readily discern the basis for the trial court’s decision, our rules provide that the generality of a concise (Footnote Continued Next Page) -5- J-A29024-20 Even if Circle K had preserved this issue, we would agree with the trial court, that based upon the plain language of the ROFR, the parties’ intent was evident, and therefore, not ambiguous. “[T]the right of first refusal is not activated in every transfer of property from one entity to another.” Lehn’s Court Management LLC v. My Mouna Inc., 837 A.2d 504, 507 (Pa. Super. 2003). 2021Under these circumstances, i.e., where an appellant cannot readily discern the basis for the trial court’s decision, our rules provide that the generality of a concise -5- J-A29024-20 Even if Circle K had preserved this issue, we would agree with the trial court, that based upon the plain language of the ROFR, the parties’ intent was evident, and therefore, not ambiguous. “[T]the right of first refusal is not activated in every transfer of property from one entity to another.” Lehn’s Court Management LLC v. My Mouna Inc., 837 A.2d 504, 507 (Pa. Super. 2003). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. BOROVICHKAgreen2 sentences2024The Commonwealth likens this case to -4- J-S43014-23 Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242, 1246-48 (Pa.Super. 2011). 2024The Commonwealth likens this case to -4- J-S43014-23 Commonwealth v. Borovichka, 18 A.3d 1242 , 1246-48 (Pa.Super. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Farrington Willgreen2 sentences1978See Farrington Will, 422 Pa. 164 , 220 A.2d 790 (1966) (instrument should be construed, if possible, to give it legal effect). 1978See Farrington Will, 422 Pa. 164 , 220 A.2d 790 (1966) (instrument should be construed, if possible, to give it legal effect). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Township of East Caln v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2016The Trust does not claim that a substantial burden attends all dimensionally compliant uses of the property as required.16 Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gudzan v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2009No such exemption shall be granted unless the recorder of deeds is presented with a copy of the trust instrument that clearly identifies the grantor and all possible beneficiaries. [4] The Act does not specifically define the term "business trust." However, as noted above, the Act's definition of an "ordinary trust" delineates the features of a business trust. 72 P.S. § 8101-C; Gudzan v. Commonwealth, 962 A.2d 718 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008). [5] This Court conducts a de novo review of Board determinations. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Gouley v. Land Title Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1980Gouley v. Land Title Bank and Trust Co., 329 Pa. at 471 , 198 A. at 9 . 1980Gouley v. Land Title Bank and Trust Co., 329 Pa. at 471 , 198 A. at 9 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Berks County Tuberculosis Society Appeal
green
1 sentence1973It has been held that admission of evidence to show the intent of the settlor of a trust is the exception and not the rule for the sound reason that the writing itself must be considered to be the best and controlling evidence of the settlor’s intent: Berks County Tuberculosis Society Appeal, 418 Pa. 112 (1965). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Harrah Estate
green
1 sentence1950Hunter, J., These exceptions raise the question as to the validity of the trust under the rule against perpetuities and the application of Harrah Estate, 364 Pa. 451 , the decision in which was handed down by the Supreme Court after the auditing judge had prepared his adjudication. | 1 | 1950–1950 |
Frederick's Appeal
green
1 sentence1933The depositor may at any time withdraw any part of the deposit during his lifetime, or otherwise revoke the trust in whole or in part at any time during his lifetime, or by will, but on his death the beneficiary is entitled to the amount remaining on deposit if the depositor has not revoked the trust.” That the will revoked the trust, there can be no question: Walkman v. Germantown Trust Co., 92 Pa. Superior Ct. 480 ; Frederick’s App., 52 Pa. 338 ; Chestnut St. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
Waltman v. Germantown Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1933The depositor may at any time withdraw any part of the deposit during his lifetime, or otherwise revoke the trust in whole or in part at any time during his lifetime, or by will, but on his death the beneficiary is entitled to the amount remaining on deposit if the depositor has not revoked the trust.” That the will revoked the trust, there can be no question: Walkman v. Germantown Trust Co., 92 Pa. Superior Ct. 480 ; Frederick’s App., 52 Pa. 338 ; Chestnut St. | 1 | 1933–1933 |
In re Riley's Estate
green
1 sentence1925A like interpretation of similar testamentary trust clauses appears in In re Riley, 24 N. Y. | 1 | 1925–1925 |
McLaughlin v. Fulton
green
1 sentence1920Upon decedent’s investing the fund in the property first purchased and title taken in her name, a trust resulted for the benefit of herself and children in the same proportions as their ownership in the fund itself; upon the sale of that property, and the reinvesting of the proceeds, with the remainder of the original fund still on deposit, in another property and the title taken and held in the same manner, such change in the form of the investment did not affect the trust under the rule that equity will follow such, funds in every form for the benefit of those entitled: McLaughlin v. Fulton, | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Kauffman v. Kauffman
green
1 sentence1920Upon decedent’s investing the fund in the property first purchased and title taken in her name, a trust resulted for the benefit of herself and children in the same proportions as their ownership in the fund itself; upon the sale of that property, and the reinvesting of the proceeds, with the remainder of the original fund still on deposit, in another property and the title taken and held in the same manner, such change in the form of the investment did not affect the trust under the rule that equity will follow such, funds in every form for the benefit of those entitled: McLaughlin v. Fulton, | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.