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 5 courts 1967–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Aumick, J.green2 sentences2025“After completing its assessment, the SOAB member must prepare and submit a written report to the district attorney, who may file a praecipe for a hearing on the matter.” Aumick, 297 A.3d at 777 (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.24(d), (e)(1)). - 15 - If a hearing is conducted, “the trial court must determine whether the Commonwealth has proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is an individual who has ‘a mental abnormality or personality disorder that makes the individual likely to engage in predatory sexually violent offenses.’” Id. at 778 (quoting 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.12 (providing t 2024Id. § 9799.24(d), (e)(1); see also Aumick, 297 A.3d at 777. | 1 | 2 |
McCullough v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2024While the entry of defense counsel’s appearance and the subsequent filing of a praecipe for a rule to file a complaint binds the defendant to the personal jurisdiction of the trial court (see McCullough v. Clark, 784 A.2d 156, 158 (Pa. Super. 2001), appeal denied, 797 A.2d 914 (Pa. 2002)), Rule 238(a)(2) states that delay damages “shall be awarded for the period of time from a date one year after the date original process was first served in the action up to the date of the award, verdict[,] or decision.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 238(a)(2). | 1 | 1 |
Ritz, J. v. Ramsay, M.green1 sentence2024See Ritz, supra; ____________________________________________ 4 The remaining parties included: the Fitzpatricks, the remaining Toll Defendants, Advanced Drywall Systems, II, LLC, L&W Supply Corporation, and Johnston Built, LLC. 5 The praecipe also provided an exception for “contribution and/or indemnification claims” asserted by any settling defendant. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bairdgreen1 sentence2024See id.; see also Commonwealth v. Baird, 856 A.2d 114, 118 (Pa. Super. 2004) (stating that “the district attorney decides whether to file a praecipe for a hearing whereby the court will determine if an offender meets the SVP criteria….”). 6 In other words, an SVP hearing does not automatically occur after receipt of the SOAB report, … but, rather, the district attorney decides whether to pursue the SVP classification by filing, or not filing, a praecipe for an SVP hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Kreider v. Brubakergreen2 sentences2001See Kreider v. Brubaker, 371 Pa. 279 , 89 A.2d 502 (1952). ¶ 6 Counsel then received the complaint, against both defendants, on June 25, 1997. 2001See Kreider v. Brubaker, 371 Pa. 279 , 89 A.2d 502 (1952). ¶ 6 Counsel then received the complaint, against both defendants, on June 25, 1997. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baumbach, R. v. Lafayette College
green
1 sentence2024(Praecipe, 3/14/23, at 1). - 11 - Baumbach, supra. Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal is timely. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Mattos v. Thompson
green
2 sentences1981Following the decision in Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385 , 421 A. 2d 190 (1980), (rendered on September 22, 1980), plaintiff elected to transfer the litigation to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on November 11, 1980. 1981Following the decision in Mattos v. Thompson, 491 Pa. 385 , 421 A. 2d 190 (1980), (rendered on September 22, 1980), plaintiff elected to transfer the litigation to the Erie County Court of Common Pleas on November 11, 1980. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Alexander v. Mastercraft Construction Co.
green
1 sentence1974Although in Alexander v. Mastercraft Construction Co., Inc., supra, held an additional defendant joined by writ only may not challenge the failure to file a complaint within 20 days by preliminary objections, we think a fair interpretation of the holding in that case also is to the effect before a judgment of non pros can be entered, defendant or additional defendant must first rule for complaint as provided by Rule 1037(a). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1972It is now defendant LaBarre’s contention, citing Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Company, 417 Pa. 135 , 208 A. 2d 252 (1965), that the filing of the rule was not a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction over the person. 1972It is now defendant LaBarre’s contention, citing Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Company, 417 Pa. 135 , 208 A. 2d 252 (1965), that the filing of the rule was not a waiver of any objection to jurisdiction over the person. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Romig v. Denkel, Exr.
neutral
1 sentence1967Co., (13 years delay) 326 Pa. 536 , 192 Atl. 657 . *116 Effect of and Practice under Rule 1037(a) Plaintiffs contend that Rule 1037(a) mandates that in all cases where the action is not commenced by complaint, the only way for defendant to obtain a judgment of non pros is by a praecipe and a rule upon plaintiffs to file a complaint, and upon plaintiffs’ failure to file a complaint within 20 days thereafter, then by praecipe to have a judgment of non pros entered. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Wildermuth v. Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co.
neutral
1 sentence1967Co., (13 years delay) 326 Pa. 536 , 192 Atl. 657 . *116 Effect of and Practice under Rule 1037(a) Plaintiffs contend that Rule 1037(a) mandates that in all cases where the action is not commenced by complaint, the only way for defendant to obtain a judgment of non pros is by a praecipe and a rule upon plaintiffs to file a complaint, and upon plaintiffs’ failure to file a complaint within 20 days thereafter, then by praecipe to have a judgment of non pros entered. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.