10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1960–2023 1 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. Proctorgreen2 sentences2014See also Commonwealth v. Proctor, 526 Pa. 246 , 585 A.2d 454, 460 (1991) (affirming the denial of relief after the trial court reseated an erroneously dismissed juror, after discussion with coun *1192 sel but outside the defendant’s presence). * * * [W]e conclude that although a defendant has the clear right to participate in the jury selection process, that right is not compromised where, as here, the defendant, who was in the courtroom, was not present at sidebar where his counsel was questioning several venirepersons outside the range of his hearing. 2014See also Commonwealth v. Proctor, 526 Pa. 246 , 585 A.2d 454, 460 (1991) (affirming the denial of relief after the trial court reseated an erroneously dismissed juror, after discussion with coun *1192 sel but outside the defendant’s presence). * * * [W]e conclude that although a defendant has the clear right to participate in the jury selection process, that right is not compromised where, as here, the defendant, who was in the courtroom, was not present at sidebar where his counsel was questioning several venirepersons outside the range of his hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Vautour v. Body Masters Sports Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2014See, e.g., Vautour, 784 A.2d at 1182 (internal citations omitted) [J-80-2013] - 102 (“[P]roduct ‘must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.’ . . . [W]hether a product is unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer is determined by the jury using a risk-utility balancing test.”); RESTATEMENT (3D) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 cmt. f (“A broad range of factors may be considered in determin 2014See, e.g., Vautour, 784 A.2d at 1182 (internal citations omitted) (“[Pjroduct ‘must be dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer who purchases it, with the ordinary knowledge common to the community as to its characteristics.’ ... [Wjhether a product is unreasonably dangerous to an extent beyond that which would be contemplated by the ordinary consumer is determined by the jury using a risk-utility balancing test.”); Restatement (3d) of Torts: Products Liability § 2 cmt. f (“A broad range of factors may be considered in determining whether an alter | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2012U.S. v. Johnson, 677 F.3d 138, 141-42 (3rd Cir.2012). 7 Based on the above case law, we conclude that although a defendant has the clear right to participate in the jury selection process, that right is not compromised where, as here, the defendant, who was in the courtroom, was not present at sidebar where his counsel was questioning several venirepersons outside the range of his hearing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tincher, T. v. Omega Flex, Inc., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2023Tincher, 104 A.3d at 389 -90 (quoting J. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Harman Ex Rel. Harman v. Borah
green
1 sentence2019Harman, 756 A.2d at 1120 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Phillips v. Cricket Lighters
green
2 sentences2014The critical distinction in approaches, as described by Omega Flex, is that “the plaintiff could not simply criticize the existing design; instead, the plaintiff would be required to prove that the manufacturer could and should have adopted a reasonable alternative design.” Id. at 47 (citing RESTATEMENT (3D) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2(b) cmt. d). 2014The critical distinction in approaches, as described by Omega Flex, is that “the plaintiff could not simply criticize the existing design; instead, the plaintiff would be required to prove that the manufacturer could and should have adopted a reasonable alternative design.” Id. at 47 (citing Restatement (3d) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(b) cmt. d). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Community Service Foundation, Inc. v. Bucks County Board of Assessment & Revision of Taxes
green
2 sentences2002Instead, my preference would be to remand to the common pleas court, which did not consider the appropriate range of factors because it was bound by Community Service Found., Inc. v. Bucks County Bd. of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 672 A.2d 373 (Pa. Cmwlth.1996), particularly as the determination of whether an entity qualifies as a purely public charity poses a mixed question of law and fact that is to be determined by the common pleas court in the first instance. 2002Instead, my preference would be to remand to the common pleas court, which did not consider the appropriate range of factors because it was bound by Community Service Found., Inc. v. Bucks County Bd. of Assessment and Revision of Taxes, 672 A.2d 373 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), particularly as the determination of whether an entity qualifies as a purely public charity poses a mixed question of law and fact that is to be determined by the common pleas court in the first instance. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review of the Commonwealth v. Ostrander
green
2 sentences1985In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ostrander, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 583 , 347 A.2d 351 (1975), for example, a truck driver was discharged by his employer after he pled guilty to a charge.of conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of a fellow truck driver. 1985In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ostrander, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 583 , 347 A.2d 351 (1975), for example, a truck driver was discharged by his employer after he pled guilty to a charge.of conspiracy to interfere with the civil rights of a fellow truck driver. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Commonwealth v. Weldon
green
2 sentences1985Commonwealth v. Weldon, 320 Pa.Super. 102 , 466 A.2d 1082 (1983). 1985Commonwealth v. Weldon, 320 Pa.Super. 102 , 466 A.2d 1082 (1983). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Bako Unemployment Compensation Case
green
2 sentences1973Given this range of inquiry, we must decide whether or not there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s denial of benefits based on its application of the oft-cited 1 principle enunciated in Bako Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 222 , 90 A. 2d 309 (1952). 1973Given this range of inquiry, we must decide whether or not there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s denial of benefits based on its application of the oft-cited 1 principle enunciated in Bako Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 222 , 90 A. 2d 309 (1952). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Climax Fire Brick Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences1973Citing the decision in Lavely Unemployment Compensation Case, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 481 , 72 A. 2d 300 (1950), which dealt with an employer’s curtailment of production in anticipation of a strike, the Superior Court stated, “The rationale of the . . . 1973Citing the decision in Lavely Unemployment Compensation Case, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 481 , 72 A. 2d 300 (1950), which dealt with an employer’s curtailment of production in anticipation of a strike, the Superior Court stated, “The rationale of the . . . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Adler v. Board of Ed. of City of New York
green
1 sentence1960Fitness for teaching depends on a broad range of factors.” The Supreme Court of the United States said in the case of Adler v. Board of Education of New York, 342 U. S. 485 , 492 : “It is clear that such persons [employed or seeking employment in the public schools] have the right under our law to assemble, speak, think and believe as they will ... | 1 | 1960–1960 |
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.