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 2 courts 1907–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hillgreen2 sentences2019In Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011), our Supreme Court stated the following with respect to waiver under Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure: Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc excepti 2015In Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011), our Supreme Court stated the following with respect to waiver under Rule 1925(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure: Our jurisprudence is clear and well-settled, and firmly establishes that: Rule 1925(b) sets out a simple bright-line rule, which obligates an appellant to file and serve a Rule 1925(b) statement, when so ordered; any issues not raised in a Rule 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived; the courts lack the authority to countenance deviations from the Rule’s terms; the Rule’s provisions are not subject to ad hoc excepti | 5 | 5 |
Sanders Appealgreen2 sentences1979See Sanders Appeal, supra, 454 Pa. at 355 n. 9, 312 A.2d at 417 n. 9 (1973). 1979See Sanders Appeal, supra, 454 Pa. at 355 n. 9, 312 A.2d at 417 n. 9 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Girard Trust Co., Exec. v. Page
green
1 sentence1927To justify the acceptance of the paper it must now appear that testator’s name was signed to it “in his. presence, by his direction and authority, and to which he makes his mark or cross unless unable to do so.” Under this wording, permission to append the signature may be implied from the attending circumstances, differing in this respect from the requirement of “express direction” where the effort is to probate under the provisions of section 2 of the Wills Act: Novicki v. O’ Mara, supra. Acquiescence is shown *560 by the placing of the mark on the paper after the name is written, as here (G | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Brehony, Exr. v. Brehony
green
1 sentence1927To justify the acceptance of the paper it must now appear that testator’s name was signed to it “in his. presence, by his direction and authority, and to which he makes his mark or cross unless unable to do so.” Under this wording, permission to append the signature may be implied from the attending circumstances, differing in this respect from the requirement of “express direction” where the effort is to probate under the provisions of section 2 of the Wills Act: Novicki v. O’ Mara, supra. Acquiescence is shown *560 by the placing of the mark on the paper after the name is written, as here (G | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Hopkins's Estate
green
1 sentence1927To justify the acceptance of the paper it must now appear that testator’s name was signed to it “in his. presence, by his direction and authority, and to which he makes his mark or cross unless unable to do so.” Under this wording, permission to append the signature may be implied from the attending circumstances, differing in this respect from the requirement of “express direction” where the effort is to probate under the provisions of section 2 of the Wills Act: Novicki v. O’ Mara, supra. Acquiescence is shown *560 by the placing of the mark on the paper after the name is written, as here (G | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Novicki v. O'Mara
green
1 sentence1927To justify the acceptance of the paper it must now appear that testator’s name was signed to it “in his. presence, by his direction and authority, and to which he makes his mark or cross unless unable to do so.” Under this wording, permission to append the signature may be implied from the attending circumstances, differing in this respect from the requirement of “express direction” where the effort is to probate under the provisions of section 2 of the Wills Act: Novicki v. O’ Mara, supra. Acquiescence is shown *560 by the placing of the mark on the paper after the name is written, as here (G | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Matulys v. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co.
neutral
1 sentence1914In Matulys v. Coal & Iron Co., 201 Pa. 70 , our Brother Bbown said (p. 76) : that “there can be no recovery for injuries to buildings or improvements, resulting from the withdrawal of such support, in the absence of proof of negligence or carelessness in excavating or mining on the adjoining land.” Further on in the same opinion it is said (p. 77) that “for an injury to buildings......an action can only be maintained when a want of due care, or skill, or positive negligence, has contributed to produce it.” As there was some evidence of negligence in this respect it was not error to decline the | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Reed v. Reed
green
1 sentence1910The latter is an absolute bar to an action on a simple contract, even if the debt remains unpaid, and that bar is removed only by a new promise to pay or by an acknowledgment of the debt consistent with a promise to pay: Reed v. Reed, 46 Pa. 239 . | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Noonan v. Pardee
green
1 sentence1907In this respect the rule in Noonan v. Pardee, 200 Pa. 474 , was followed. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
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.