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 4 courts 1932–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wolf v. Weymersgreen2 sentences2025It is well-established that “the right to raise the objection of venue is a mere personal privilege belonging to the defendant which may be waived by that defendant[.]” Wolf, 427 A.2d at 680-81 (cleaned up). 1982In support thereof, plaintiff cites Wolf v. Weymers, 285 Pa. Super. 361 , 427 A.2d 678 (1981), where the court stated: “It is settled law that the right to raise the objection of venue is a mere personal privilege belonging to the defendant which may be waived by that defendant; and that, unlike the question of subject matter jurisdiction, it is generally held that the court on its own motion may not order a change of venue, nor may it dismiss for improper venue.” Id. at 680-81. | 2 | 2 |
Hohlstein v. Hohlsteingreen2 sentences1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). 1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). | 1 | 2 |
Kovach v. Gen. Tel. Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences1989A license is “ ‘a mere personal privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another.’ ” Kovach v. General Telephone Co., 340 Pa.Super. 144, 148 , 489 A.2d 883, 885 (1985) (quoting Dailey’s Cheverolet v. Worster Realties, Inc., 312 Pa.Super. 275, 281 , 458 A.2d 956, 960 (1983)). 1989A license is “ ‘a mere personal privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another.’ ” Kovach v. General Telephone Co., 340 Pa.Super. 144, 148 , 489 A.2d 883, 885 (1985) (quoting Dailey’s Cheverolet v. Worster Realties, Inc., 312 Pa.Super. 275, 281 , 458 A.2d 956, 960 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Dailey's Chevrolet, Inc. v. Worster Realties, Inc.green2 sentences1989A license is “ ‘a mere personal privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another.’ ” Kovach v. General Telephone Co., 340 Pa.Super. 144, 148 , 489 A.2d 883, 885 (1985) (quoting Dailey’s Cheverolet v. Worster Realties, Inc., 312 Pa.Super. 275, 281 , 458 A.2d 956, 960 (1983)). 1989A license is “ ‘a mere personal privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another.’ ” Kovach v. General Telephone Co., 340 Pa.Super. 144, 148 , 489 A.2d 883, 885 (1985) (quoting Dailey’s Cheverolet v. Worster Realties, Inc., 312 Pa.Super. 275, 281 , 458 A.2d 956, 960 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co.green2 sentences1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). 1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). | 1 | 1 |
O'Nail v. Craiggreen1 sentence1979But it having been ruled that the exemption is a mere personal privilege which the debtor can at any time waive, and that a waiver once made cannot be retracted, the whole force of the statute is eluded by simply a change in the form of the contract.” Id. at 162 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Firmstone v. Mackgreen1 sentence1975Firmstone v. Mack, 49 Pa. 387, 393 (1865); “That he may waive this option under the Act of 1849, not only results out of the nature of the thing, but has been expressly declared in many cases, in some, however, with regrets expressed that we did not set out with a different construction and hold the privilege or option indefeasible. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Barnettgreen1 sentence1933In Commonwealth v. Barnett, 199 Pa. 161, 177, 178 , it was said that objections to the jurisdiction are of two classes, first, those relating to the authority of the court over the subject matter, and secondly, those relating to its authority over parties; that objections of the first class cannot be waived nor jurisdiction obtained by acquiescence; but that in the second class the rule is different; that the party exempt from jurisdiction may waive his personal privilege, and, if he does so, the jurisdiction of the court is complete. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yohey v. Yohey
green
2 sentences1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). 1982See also Encelewski v. Associated-East Mortgage Co., 262 Pa. Super. 205 , 396 A.2d 717 (1978) (if not raised preliminarily, objection to personal jurisdiction is waived); Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Super. 348 , 296 A.2d 886 (1972); Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Pa. Super. 329 , 208 A.2d 902 (1965). | 2 | 1972–1982 |
Hennebont Co. v. Kroger Co.
green
2 sentences1989Referring to the fact that a license is a mere personal privilege to perform certain acts on the land of another and conveys no interest or estate in the land, Hennebont Co. v. Kroger Co., 221 Pa.Super. 65 , 289 A.2d 229 (1972); Thompson v. Com. 1989Referring to the fact that a license is a mere personal privilege to perform certain acts on the land of another and conveys no interest or estate in the land, Hennebont Co. v. Kroger Co., 221 Pa.Super. 65 , 289 A.2d 229 (1972); Thompson v. Com. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Thompson v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways
green
2 sentences1989Dept. of Highways, 214 Pa.Super. 329 , 257 A.2d 639 (1969), Appellee reasons that the lot owners had no interest in the property retained by the grantor and therefore are not proper parties to her quiet title action. 1989Dept. of Highways, 214 Pa.Super. 329 , 257 A.2d 639 (1969), Appellee reasons that the lot owners had no interest in the property retained by the grantor and therefore are not proper parties to her quiet title action. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fennell v. Guffey
green
2 sentences1972Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Superior Ct. 329, 208 A. 2d 902 (1965); Fennell v. Guffey, 155 Pa. 38 , 25 A. 785 (1893). 1972Yohey v. Yohey, 205 Superior Ct. 329, 208 A. 2d 902 (1965); Fennell v. Guffey, 155 Pa. 38 , 25 A. 785 (1893). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Fleming's Estate
green
2 sentences1944It is a mere personal privilege and is not property: Fleming’s Estate, 217 Pa. 610 , 66 A. 874 . 1944It is a mere personal privilege and is not property: Fleming’s Estate, 217 Pa. 610 , 66 A. 874 . | 1 | 1944–1944 |
McCullough v. Railway Mail Ass'n
green
1 sentence1933Encyc. of Law (2d ed.) 961: “the better opinion seems to be that the exemption from liability to be sued is grounded on a mere personal privilege, which may be waived or lost by not being asserted in time.” The appearance may be either in person or by counsel, but the defendant will also be regarded as having appeared if he give bail to the action or if he file an affidavit of defense: McCullough v. Railway Mail Assn., 225 Pa. 118 . | 1 | 1933–1933 |
In re French
green
1 sentence1932If the exemption is of the former class, it must be asserted with the formality required by the state statute; if it is of the latter class, the statute executes itself.” *466 In Re French, 231 Fed. 255 , the Federal District Court of the Northern District of New York discussed the exemption based on section 1390 of that state’s code of civil procedure, which provides that certain property when owned by a householder, including stoves put up or kept for use shall be exempt. | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.