10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1986–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Packer, D.green2 sentences2026See Brief at 19 (referring to this practice as lodging a “suppressive appeal”). [J-72A-2025 and J-72B-2025] - 9 are not a net drain on the public fisc reflects an effort by the district to handle public funds in a responsible and judicious manner based on a cost-benefit analysis. 11 We previously suggested the Uniformity Clause might permit this type of selection methodology, see Valley Forge Towers, 163 A.3d at 979 , and we now hold that the use of a monetary threshold, without more, does not violate the Uniformity Clause. 2026See Brief at 19 (referring to this practice as lodging a “suppressive appeal”). [J-72A-2025 and J-72B-2025] - 9 are not a net drain on the public fisc reflects an effort by the district to handle public funds in a responsible and judicious manner based on a cost-benefit analysis. 11 We previously suggested the Uniformity Clause might permit this type of selection methodology, see Valley Forge Towers, 163 A.3d at 979 , and we now hold that the use of a monetary threshold, without more, does not violate the Uniformity Clause. | 3 | 3 |
Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.green2 sentences2021Under the consumer expectations test, a “defective condition” is defined as “a condition, upon normal use, dangerous beyond the reasonable consumer’s contemplations.””> A product is in a defective condition if the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer.”® By contrast, the risk-utility test offers a cost-benefit analysis wherein a product is in a defective condition if a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product that “the best means to implement the principles of the Second Restatement was to direct: (1 2021Under the consumer expectations test, a “defective condition” is defined as “a condition, upon normal use, dangerous beyond the reasonable consumer’s contemplations.””> A product is in a defective condition if the danger is unknowable and unacceptable to the average or ordinary consumer.”® By contrast, the risk-utility test offers a cost-benefit analysis wherein a product is in a defective condition if a reasonable person would conclude that the probability and seriousness of harm caused by the product that “the best means to implement the principles of the Second Restatement was to direct: (1 | 1 | 2 |
Phillips v. Cricket Lightersgreen2 sentences2009See Phillips, 576 Pa. at 675-79 , 841 A.2d at 1019-21 ; see also DGS v. United States Mineral Prods. 2009See Phillips, 576 Pa. at 675-79 , 841 A.2d at 1019-21 ; see also DGS v. United States Mineral Prods. | 1 | 1 |
McKay v. Sandmold Systems, Inc.green2 sentences1986McKay v. Sandmold Systems, 333 Pa.Super. 235, 240 , 482 A.2d 260, 263 (1984). 1986McKay v. Sandmold Systems, 333 Pa.Super. 235, 240 , 482 A.2d 260, 263 (1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences2010Applying the cost-benefit analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), 5 the Seventh Circuit determined that Chicago’s system did not violate due process because the “the benefits of requiring the [ticket writer] to appear at every hearing are unlikely to exceed the costs.” Id. at 1352. 2010Applying the cost-benefit analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), 5 the Seventh Circuit determined that Chicago’s system did not violate due process because the “the benefits of requiring the [ticket writer] to appear at every hearing are unlikely to exceed the costs.” Id. at 1352. | 2 | 1998–2010 |
Azzarello v. Black Bros. Co., Inc.
red
1 sentence2014See Owen, Hornbook, at § 5.7; Azzarello, 391 A.2d at 1026 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
James Sutton, Jr. v. City of Milwaukee
green
1 sentence1998He pointed out that in Sutton v. Milwaukee, 672 F.2d 644 (7th Cir. *548 1982), the court, using a cost-benefit analysis approved by the Supreme Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), held that towing an illegally parked auto without prior notice is proper because the risk of error is small and the governmental need great. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.