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 2 courts 1982–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leshko v. Leshkogreen1 sentence2025We vacate the final PFA order and remand for a new final PFA hearing.3 See Leshko v. Leshko, 833 A.2d 790, 792 (Pa. Super. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Khan v. State Board of Auctioneer Examinersgreen1 sentence2016His decision to wait until days before the rescheduled hearing in May 2014 to do so does not constitute “good cause” for another continuance. 12 holding: “The [b]oard, in a reciprocal disciplinary action, may not consider the merits of the discipline imposed by the foreign jurisdiction, which is the appropriate forum in which to litigate them.” Id. at 943 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Prestongreen1 sentence2012Id. at 4, 15 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. McClendon, C.
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2023Upon our review of the relevant docket, see, e.g., Miller, 131 A.3d at 115 , it states (1) the citation and docket numbers in Hearing Exhibit C-1; (2) a summary trial occurred before Magisterial District Judge Hunter on December 13, 2021; (3) an “offense disposition” of “guilty” for violating 75 Pa.C.S. § 1371(a), with a disposition and filed date of December 13, 2021; and (4) “disposition cancelled” with a filed date of December 13, 2021. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Weir v. Weir
green
1 sentence2023Id. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lei Ke v. Fry
green
1 sentence2020Chester Univ. of the Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ., 139 S.Ct. 167 (2018). 2 We note that we have added the letter “a” following citations to pages within the Reproduced Record, as per Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure Number 2173. 3 Bradley’s state court complaint is not in the reproduced record but is in the original trial court record. 4 Act of December 12, 1986, P.L. 1559, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 1421–1428. 3 On September 20, 2016, the trial court rescheduled the rule returnable hearing for October 11, 2016. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Stossel
green
1 sentence2015As we discussed supra in addressing Mother’s ability to exercise her right to counsel, the facts of this case correlate with our recent discussion in In re A.R., supra, rather than Stossel, supra or In the Interest of X.J., supra. Mother had notice of the rescheduled hearing, as demonstrated by her telephone contact with counsel and the orphans’ court administrator, and counsel’s confusion was not caused by a breakdown in the court’s machinery. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In the Int. of: X.J. Appeal of: D.A.
green
2 sentences2015While not identical to either case, the facts of the instant matter align closer to the facts of In re A.R., supra, than the confusion confronting the court in In the Interest of X.J., supra. Consistent with the father in In re A.R., supra, and in contrast to the mother in In the Interest of X.J., whose parental rights were terminated in absentia following the court’s faulty service of the notice of the involuntary termination hearing and the trial court’s confusion as to her representation, Mother in the case at bar received notice of the rescheduled hearing, had been informed of her right to 2015As we discussed supra in addressing Mother’s ability to exercise her right to counsel, the facts of this case correlate with our recent discussion in In re A.R., supra, rather than Stossel, supra or In the Interest of X.J., supra. Mother had notice of the rescheduled hearing, as demonstrated by her telephone contact with counsel and the orphans’ court administrator, and counsel’s confusion was not caused by a breakdown in the court’s machinery. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Palladino v. Palladino
green
2 sentences2004Lastly, Husband contends that the court should have offset the amount Wife received for the $24,826 sur-vivorship benefit with an amount for attorney fees pursuant to Palladino, supra. Our ability to review the grant of attorney’s fees is limited, and we will reverse only upon a showing of plain error. 2004Lastly, Husband contends that the court should have offset the amount Wife received for the $24,826 survivorship benefit with an amount for attorney fees pursuant to Palladino, supra . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1982Rodriguez v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 65 , 408 A.2d 1191 (1979). 1982Rodriguez v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 65 , 408 A.2d 1191 (1979). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences1982Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 486 , 430 A.2d 376 (1981). 1982Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 486 , 430 A.2d 376 (1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.