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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1898–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Rosado, F., Apltgreen2 sentences2026Our Supreme Court has distinguished between “errors causing waiver of all claims and those failing to preserve particular claims,” which “prevent[s] the exceptional doctrine of ineffective assistance of counsel per se from engulfing the general rule that an accused must demonstrate that counsel’s errors caused him prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Rosado, 150 A.3d 425 , 433–35 (Pa. 2016) (emphasis in original); see Halley, 870 A.2d at 801 (“The -7- J-S44004-25 difference in degree between failures that completely foreclose appellate review, and those which may result in narrowing its ambit, justifie 2020Importantly, the Supreme Court explained “that maintaining the distinction between errors causing waiver of all claims and those failing to preserve particular claims appropriately prevented the exceptional doctrine of ineffective assistance of counsel per se from engulfing the general rule that an accused must demonstrate that counsel’s errors caused him prejudice.” Id. at 431-32 . | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Hernandezgreen1 sentence2026Our Supreme Court has distinguished between “errors causing waiver of all claims and those failing to preserve particular claims,” which “prevent[s] the exceptional doctrine of ineffective assistance of counsel per se from engulfing the general rule that an accused must demonstrate that counsel’s errors caused him prejudice.” Commonwealth v. Rosado, 150 A.3d 425 , 433–35 (Pa. 2016) (emphasis in original); see Halley, 870 A.2d at 801 (“The -7- J-S44004-25 difference in degree between failures that completely foreclose appellate review, and those which may result in narrowing its ambit, justifie | 1 | 1 |
Roofner's Appealgreen2 sentences1981As our Superior Court long ago observed, "to permit such use of public funds is but to encourage a disregard of duty and to put a premium upon neglect or *65 refusal of public officials to perform the duties imposed upon them by law." Roofner's Appeal, 81 Pa.Super. 482, 485 (1923). 1981As our Superior Court long ago observed, “to permit such use of public funds is but to encourage a disregard of duty and to put a premium upon neglect or refusal of public officials to perform the duties imposed upon them by law.” Roofner’s Appeal, 81 Pa. Super. 482, 485 (1923). | 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. Halley
green
2 sentences2016Id. (“[T]he limiting principle arising from the recognition of such difference in degree addresses the . . . concern that the presumption should not extend to every circumstance in which a defendant may claim no effective appeal.” (citations omitted)). [J-79-2016] - 11 Our subsequent decisions have maintained Halley’s distinction between errors which completely foreclose merits review and those which merely “narrow its ambit.” Thus, in Reaves, we held an attorney’s failure to file a post-sentence motion preserving a particular sentencing claim “did not operate to entirely foreclose appellate r 2016Id. (“[T]he limiting principle arising from the recognition of such difference in degree addresses the ... concern that the presumption should not extend to every circumstance in which a defendant may claim no effective appeal.” (citations omitted)). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Appletree Land Development v. Zoning Hearing Board of York Township
green
1 sentence2019We have held that an applicant’s failure to determine the zoning requirements, whether mistakenly or intentionally, “bars [an applicant’s] ability to invoke the exceptional standard for a de minimis variance.” Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Reaves
green
1 sentence2016Id. (“[T]he limiting principle arising from the recognition of such difference in degree addresses the . . . concern that the presumption should not extend to every circumstance in which a defendant may claim no effective appeal.” (citations omitted)). [J-79-2016] - 11 Our subsequent decisions have maintained Halley’s distinction between errors which completely foreclose merits review and those which merely “narrow its ambit.” Thus, in Reaves, we held an attorney’s failure to file a post-sentence motion preserving a particular sentencing claim “did not operate to entirely foreclose appellate r | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Skeen Et Vir v. Stanley Co. of America
green
2 sentences1953In support of what they denote as “this exceptional doctrine” they cite Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa. 376 , 133 A. 568 , and Skeen v. Stanley Co. of America, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 , and conclude from the fact of recovery by plaintiff in each of these cases that as a general proposition of law the proprietor of a public place of amusement warrants the physical *31 safety of bis paid patrons. 1953In support of what they denote as “this exceptional doctrine” they cite Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa. 376 , 133 A. 568 , and Skeen v. Stanley Co. of America, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 , and conclude from the fact of recovery by plaintiff in each of these cases that as a general proposition of law the proprietor of a public place of amusement warrants the physical *31 safety of bis paid patrons. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Durning v. Hyman
green
2 sentences1953In support of what they denote as “this exceptional doctrine” they cite Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa. 376 , 133 A. 568 , and Skeen v. Stanley Co. of America, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 , and conclude from the fact of recovery by plaintiff in each of these cases that as a general proposition of law the proprietor of a public place of amusement warrants the physical *31 safety of bis paid patrons. 1953In support of what they denote as “this exceptional doctrine” they cite Durning v. Hyman, 286 Pa. 376 , 133 A. 568 , and Skeen v. Stanley Co. of America, 362 Pa. 174 , 66 A. 2d 774 , and conclude from the fact of recovery by plaintiff in each of these cases that as a general proposition of law the proprietor of a public place of amusement warrants the physical *31 safety of bis paid patrons. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Appleby v. Barrett
green
1 sentence1919A defendant’s set-off must be pleaded with as much certainty as a plaintiff’s statement of claim: Law v. Waldron, 230 Pa. 458 ; Appleby v. Barrett, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Law v. Waldron
neutral
1 sentence1919A defendant’s set-off must be pleaded with as much certainty as a plaintiff’s statement of claim: Law v. Waldron, 230 Pa. 458 ; Appleby v. Barrett, 28 Pa. Superior Ct. 349 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Ege v. Kille
green
1 sentence1898The cases of property which is part of the realty, but the value of which depends on its conversion into personalty, such as coal, iron ore, etc., have a different and exceptional rule of their own, because they involve expense and risk in the conversion of the material, which is realty in place, into personalty in the market, and to measure the value in place by the value in market, less the cost of getting it there, would, as was said by our Brother Green in Fulmer’s Appeal, 128 Pa. 24 , be giving “ a share in the profits of carrying on the business without being subject to the risks or poss | 1 | 1898–1898 |
Fulmer v. Williams
green
1 sentence1898The cases of property which is part of the realty, but the value of which depends on its conversion into personalty, such as coal, iron ore, etc., have a different and exceptional rule of their own, because they involve expense and risk in the conversion of the material, which is realty in place, into personalty in the market, and to measure the value in place by the value in market, less the cost of getting it there, would, as was said by our Brother Green in Fulmer’s Appeal, 128 Pa. 24 , be giving “ a share in the profits of carrying on the business without being subject to the risks or poss | 1 | 1898–1898 |
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.