10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
PA. HUM. REL. COM. v. Norristown Sch. Dist.green2 sentences1998As emphasized by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Norristown Area School District, 473 Pa. 334 , 374 A.2d 671 (1977), [t]he critical distinction between a substantive rule and a general statement of policy is the different practical effect that these two types of pronouncements have in subsequent administrative pro-ceedings_ A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law.... 1998As emphasized by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. Norristown Area School District, 473 Pa. 334 , 374 A.2d 671 (1977), [t]he critical distinction between a substantive rule and a general statement of policy is the different practical effect that these two types of pronouncements have in subsequent administrative pro-ceedings_ A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law.... | 1 | 8 |
Cary v. Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairsgreen1 sentence2020See Cary v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (State Board of Medicine), 153 A.3d 1205, 1213-15 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (en banc) (“A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law . . . . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 323053
green
1 sentence2011The underlying policy embodied in the rule is not generally subject to challenge before the agency.” Id. at 349-50 , 374 A.2d at 679 (quoting Pacific Gas & Electric v. FPC, 506 F.2d 33 , 38 (D.C.Cir.1974)) (alterations in original) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lopata v. COM., UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REV.
green
2 sentences2011In Lopata v. UCBR, 507 Pa. 570 , 493 A.2d 657 (1985), this Court summarized the difference between regulations and policy statements: A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law ... 2011In Lopata v. UCBR, 507 Pa. 570 , 493 A.2d 657 (1985), this Court summarized the difference between regulations and policy statements: A properly adopted substantive rule establishes a standard of conduct which has the force of law ... | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.