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.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 7 courts 1911–2015 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burleson v. Texas Department of Criminal Justicegreen1 sentence2012Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 587 (5th Cir.2004) (observing that, under the Daubert regime at least, "[a] court may rightfully exclude expert testimony where a court finds that an expert has extrapolated data, and there is ‘too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.' ” (quoting Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. at 519 )). 24 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Murphygreen2 sentences2011See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 559 Pa. 71 , 739 A.2d 141, 150 (1999) (rejecting Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the charge informing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body because such instruction is “consistent with long-standing jurisprudence of this Court”); Commonwealth v. Ly, 528 Pa. 523 , 599 A.2d 613, 619 (1991) (holding that “the instructions that the jury could infer malice or intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body was proper and does not s 2011See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 559 Pa. 71 , 739 A.2d 141, 150 (1999) (rejecting Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the charge informing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body because such instruction is “consistent with long-standing jurisprudence of this Court”); Commonwealth v. Ly, 528 Pa. 523 , 599 A.2d 613, 619 (1991) (holding that “the instructions that the jury could infer malice or intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body was proper and does not s | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Cam Lygreen2 sentences2011See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 559 Pa. 71 , 739 A.2d 141, 150 (1999) (rejecting Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the charge informing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body because such instruction is “consistent with long-standing jurisprudence of this Court”); Commonwealth v. Ly, 528 Pa. 523 , 599 A.2d 613, 619 (1991) (holding that “the instructions that the jury could infer malice or intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body was proper and does not s 2011See Commonwealth v. Murphy, 559 Pa. 71 , 739 A.2d 141, 150 (1999) (rejecting Appellant’s claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the charge informing the jury that it could infer malice from the use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the victim’s body because such instruction is “consistent with long-standing jurisprudence of this Court”); Commonwealth v. Ly, 528 Pa. 523 , 599 A.2d 613, 619 (1991) (holding that “the instructions that the jury could infer malice or intent to kill from the use of a deadly weapon upon a vital part of the body was proper and does not s | 1 | 1 |
Kitchen v. Wilkinsongreen1 sentence1940In Kitchen v. Wilkinson, 26 Pa. Superior Ct. 75, 80 (1904), it was observed: “A decent burial is the right of everyone. | 1 | 1 |
Kreeger's Estategreen1 sentence1940Our Supreme Court, in Kreeger’s Estate, 277 Pa. 326, 328 (1923), wrote: “ 'So universal is the right of sepulture, that the common law, as it seems, casts the duty of providing it, and of carrying to the grave, the dead body decently covered, upon the person under whose roof the death takes place; for such person cannot keep the body unburied, nor do anything which prevents Christian burial; he cannot, therefore, cast it out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; and, for the same reason, he cannot carry the dead body uncovered t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wynkoop v. Wynkoop
green
2 sentences1931The duty of an administrator or executor to bury his decedent is well set forth by Mr. Justice Read in Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 42 Pa. 293, 300 , as follows: “So universal is the right of sepulture, that the common law, as it seems, casts the duty of providing it, and of carrying to the grave, the dead body decently covered, upon the person under whose roof the death takes place; for such person cannot keep the body unburied, nor do anything which prevents Christian burial; he cannot, therefore, cast it out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to offend the feelings or endanger the health of 1923In Wynkoop v. Wynkoop, 42 Pa. 293 , speaking of burial customs and funeral expenses, it was said: “So universal is the right of sepulture, that the common law, as it seems, casts the duty of providing it, and of carrying to the grave, the dead body decently covered, upon the person under whose roof the death takes place; for such person cannot keep the body unburied, nor do anything which prevents Christian burial; he cannot, therefore, cast it out, so as to expose the body to violation, or to offend the feelings or endanger the health of the living; and, for the same reason, he cannot carry t | 3 | 1923–1953 |
Hamby v. STOE
green
2 sentences2015Subp[P]aragraph (a)(5)[(Peremptory judgment in mandamus)]— Subp[P]aragraph (a)(5), added in 1996, authorizes an interlocutory appeal as of right from an order granting a motion for peremptory judgment in mandamus without the condition precedent of a motion to open the peremptory judgment in mandamus. [Under prior practice established in Hamby v. Stoe, 448 Pa. 483 , 295 A.2d 309 (1972), an order granting peremptory judgment in mandamus was not appealable; only the order denying a motion to open the peremptory judgment in mandamus was appealable. 2015Subp[P]aragraph (a)(5)[(Peremptory judgment in mandamus)]— Subp[P]aragraph (a)(5), added in 1996, authorizes an interlocutory appeal as of right from an order granting a motion for peremptory judgment in mandamus without the condition precedent of a motion to open the peremptory judgment in mandamus. [Under prior practice established in Hamby v. Stoe, 448 Pa. 483 , 295 A.2d 309 (1972), an order granting peremptory judgment in mandamus was not appealable; only the order denying a motion to open the peremptory judgment in mandamus was appealable. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
green
2 sentences2012Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 587 (5th Cir.2004) (observing that, under the Daubert regime at least, "[a] court may rightfully exclude expert testimony where a court finds that an expert has extrapolated data, and there is ‘too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.' ” (quoting Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. at 519 )). 24 . 2012Justice, 393 F.3d 577, 587 (5th Cir.2004) (observing that, under the Daubert regime at least, "[a] court may rightfully exclude expert testimony where a court finds that an expert has extrapolated data, and there is ‘too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.' ” (quoting Joiner, 522 U.S. at 146 , 118 S.Ct. at 519 )). 24 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Northern Electrical Manufacturing Co. v. Columbia Brewing Co.
neutral
1 sentence1937Co. v. Columbia Brewing Co., 47 Pa. Superior Ct. 96 . | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Jacob A. Bohem & Bros. v. Seel
green
1 sentence1922Had he made the contract in his own name with the plaintiff for a lump sum, the lien would be valid, and the jury has found that he did so contract in substituting the name of Leasure for his own: Bohem & Bros. v. Seel, 185 Pa. 382 .” We observe, however, that the claimant prays that the claim “be amended in the particulars as to which there is a variance between said lien as filed and the facts averred herein.” If leave to amend were granted in that form, we should be obliged to ascertain what textual or verbal changes are thereby introduced into the body of the claim. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co.
green
1 sentence1911That contract and all the averments of the body of the claim are to be considered in determining whether or not the items, which the learned judge of the court below held must be stricken out, were sufficiently averred as matters constituting a lien and as of the time stated in the bill of particulars, and whether it sufficiently appeared from the averments of the claim that any work and materials, which were the subject of lien, had been done and furnished within three months prior to the service of the notice: American Car & Foundry Co. v. Alexandria Water Co., 215 Pa. 520 . | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.