11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2010–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Larkgreen2 sentences2017Commonwealth v. Collins, 550 Pa. 46 , 703 A.2d 418, 422 (1997) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290 , 543 A.2d 491, 496-97 (1988)). 2017Commonwealth v. Collins, 550 Pa. 46 , 703 A.2d 418, 422 (1997) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290 , 543 A.2d 491, 496-97 (1988)). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2017Commonwealth v. Collins, 550 Pa. 46 , 703 A.2d 418, 422 (1997) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290 , 543 A.2d 491, 496-97 (1988)). 2017Commonwealth v. Collins, 550 Pa. 46 , 703 A.2d 418, 422 (1997) (quoting Commonwealth v. Lark, 518 Pa. 290 , 543 A.2d 491, 496-97 (1988)). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Bagleygreen2 sentences2026Under the doctrine of severance, a court may strike the invalid portions of a warrant and keep the portions that “describe with particularity the evidence to be seized.” Id. at 729 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bagley, 596 A.2d 811, 924 (Pa. Super. 1991)). 2015Commonwealth v. Begley, 596 A.2d 811, 824 (Pa. Super. 1991). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hopkins, K.green2 sentences2018Hopkins, 117 A.3d at 259-262 (applying the severance doctrine in determining "whether the statute can survive without [unconstitutionally] invalid provisions"). 2016See, e.g., Hopkins, 632 Pa. at 55-62 , 117 A.3d at 259-62 (applying the severance doctrine in determining “whether the statute can survive without [unconstitutionally] invalid provisions”). | 2 | 2 |
Kaiser v. Meinzergreen1 sentence2026See Trial Court Opinion, 10/8/2025, at 10-11.3 ____________________________________________ 3 We further note that, under the severance rule, Pa.R.Civ.P. 213(b), the trial court “may, on its own motion or on motion of any party, order a separate trial of any cause of action, claim, or counterclaim, set-off, or cross-suit, or of any separate issue, or of any number of causes of action, claims, counterclaims, set-offs, cross-suits, or issues.” Where a cause of action or claim has been severed, the severance splits it into an independent action “for all purposes, including trial and appellate pro | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2026See Trial Court Opinion, 10/8/2025, at 10-11.3 ____________________________________________ 3 We further note that, under the severance rule, Pa.R.Civ.P. 213(b), the trial court “may, on its own motion or on motion of any party, order a separate trial of any cause of action, claim, or counterclaim, set-off, or cross-suit, or of any separate issue, or of any number of causes of action, claims, counterclaims, set-offs, cross-suits, or issues.” Where a cause of action or claim has been severed, the severance splits it into an independent action “for all purposes, including trial and appellate pro | 1 | 1 |
Kaiser v. Meinzergreen1 sentence2026See Trial Court Opinion, 10/8/2025, at 10-11.3 ____________________________________________ 3 We further note that, under the severance rule, Pa.R.Civ.P. 213(b), the trial court “may, on its own motion or on motion of any party, order a separate trial of any cause of action, claim, or counterclaim, set-off, or cross-suit, or of any separate issue, or of any number of causes of action, claims, counterclaims, set-offs, cross-suits, or issues.” Where a cause of action or claim has been severed, the severance splits it into an independent action “for all purposes, including trial and appellate pro | 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. Ani, N.
green
1 sentence2026Under the doctrine of severance, a court may strike the invalid portions of a warrant and keep the portions that “describe with particularity the evidence to be seized.” Id. at 729 (quoting Commonwealth v. Bagley, 596 A.2d 811, 924 (Pa. Super. 1991)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Stilp v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2024Although courts will decline to enforce such provisions where they constitute boilerplate attempts by the General Assembly to coerce the judiciary and thwart judicial review, id. at 978-79 , our Supreme Court nonetheless has recognized that [t]here may be reasons why the provisions of a particular statute essentially inter-relate, but in ways which are not apparent from a consideration of the bare language of the statute as governed by the settled severance standard set forth in Section 1925 of the Statutory Construction Act[]. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Casuccio
green
1 sentence2018Id. (quoting Aday v. Superior Court of California, 362 P.2d 47 (Cal. 1961).4 Here, the warrant was general and, therefore, we decline to apply the severance doctrine. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Aday v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2018Id. (quoting Aday v. Superior Court of California, 362 P.2d 47 (Cal. 1961).4 Here, the warrant was general and, therefore, we decline to apply the severance doctrine. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Jones v. GGNSC PIERRE LLC
green
1 sentence2010Second, the court found that “[t]he existence of the severance clause in the arbitration agreement is evidence that the parties did not intend for the entire agreement to fail if one portion was invalid or unenforceable.” Id. at 1167-68 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.