66 Pennsylvania opinions name it 11 courts 1851–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
Furniss v. Lower Merion Townshipgreen2 sentences1974As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 192 A. 2d 926 , 927 (1963): ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 1973As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 194 A. 2d 926, 927 (1963) : ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must he subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 | 2 | 3 |
Zebra v. Pittsburgh School Districtgreen2 sentences1981Our role in this case is made clear in Zebra v. Pittsburgh School District, 449 Pa. 432, 437 , 296 A. 2d 748, 750 (1972): “Courts are further restrained, when dealing with matters of school policy, by the long-established and salutary rule that the courts should not function as super school boards. 1981Our role in this case is made clear in Zebra v. Pittsburgh School District, 449 Pa. 432, 437 , 296 A. 2d 748, 750 (1972): “Courts are further restrained, when dealing with matters of school policy, by the long-established and salutary rule that the courts should not function as super school boards. | 2 | 2 |
State Dental Council & Examining Board v. Pollockgreen2 sentences1982For example, less than six weeks after Commonwealth v. Young, supra , our Supreme Court filed an opinion considering a summary of facts alleged in the appellee's brief, even though there was nothing in the record concerning these facts, because the appellant had "not substantially challenged that summary in any of his filings." State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 271 , 318 A.2d 910, 914 (1974). 1982For example, less than six weeks after Commonwealth v. Young, supra , our Supreme Court filed an opinion considering a summary of facts alleged in the appellee's brief, even though there was nothing in the record concerning these facts, because the appellant had "not substantially challenged that summary in any of his filings." State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 271 , 318 A.2d 910, 914 (1974). | 2 | 2 |
State of Alabama v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Willie B. Brooks v. Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences1974See also Brooks v. Beto, 366 F.2d 1, 9 (5th Cir. 1966). [26] That *84 principle underlay our decision in Chester School District , and it underlies our decision today. 1974See also Brooks v. Beto, 366 F.2d 1, 9 (5th Cir. 1966). 26 That principle underlay our decision in Chester School District , and it underlies our decision today. | 2 | 2 |
Marcus Jones, Willie B. Hodge, Clifton Nickels and Clarence L. Irving v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc.green2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Garrisongreen2 sentences2017“The long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Id. 2005See Appellant’s brief, at 14. 7 “A conviction of contempt for violation of a court order can be sustained only if the order or decree was ‘definite, clear, specific and left no doubt or uncertainty’ in the mind of the person to whom it was addressed of the conduct prohibited. ‘The long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.’ ” Commonwealth v. Garrison, 478 Pa. 356, 368-69 , 386 A.2d 971, 977 (1978) (citations omitted; emphasis added). ¶ 14 There is no doubt that the “conduct prohibited” by | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2015Commonwealth v. Fluharty, 632 A.2d 312, 314 (Pa. Super. 1993) (quoting Commonwealth v. Anthony, 475 A.2d 1303, 1307 (Pa. 1984) (footnote omitted)). 1991Id., 504 Pa. at 559 , 475 A.2d at 1307 . | 1 | 2 |
Hibbs v. Arensberggreen2 sentences1981We will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of a school board’s power unless the action was based on ‘a misconception of law, ignorance through lack of inquiry into the facts necessary to form an intelligent judgment, or the result of arbitrary will or caprice.’ ” (Quoting Hibbs v. Arensberg, 276 Pa. 24 , 119 A. 2d 727 (1923) ). 1972We will not interfere with the discretionary exercise of a school board’s power unless the action was based on “a misconception of law, ignorance through lack of inquiry into the facts necessary to form an intelligent judgment, or the result of arbitrary will or caprice.” Hibbs v. Arensberg, 276 Pa. 24, 26 , 119 A. 727, 728 (1923). | 1 | 2 |
Linwood T. Ford v. Edward Kammerergreen2 sentences1978“The long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt.” Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir. 1971); accord, United States v. Christie Industries, 465 F.2d 1002 (3rd Cir. 1972). 1978"The long-standing salutary rule in contempt cases is that ambiguities and omissions in orders redound to the benefit of the person charged with contempt." Ford v. Kammerer, 450 F.2d 279, 280 (3rd Cir. 1971); accord, United States v. Christie Industries, 465 F.2d 1002 (3rd Cir. 1972). | 1 | 2 |
National Land & Investment Co. v. Easttown Township Board of Adjustmentgreen2 sentences1970Board of Adjustment, 419 Pa. 504, 521-22 , 215 A. 2d 597, 606-07 (1965) (hereinafter cited as national Land) : “The days are fast disappearing when the judiciary can look at a zoning ordinance and, with nearly as much confidence as a professional zoning expert, decide xipon the merits of a zoning plan and its contribution to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. 1970Board of Adjustment, 419 Pa. 504, 521-22 , 215 A. 2d 597, 606-07 (1965) (hereinafter cited as national Land) : “The days are fast disappearing when the judiciary can look at a zoning ordinance and, with nearly as much confidence as a professional zoning expert, decide xipon the merits of a zoning plan and its contribution to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. | 1 | 2 |
| Commonwealth v. Fluhartygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Whartongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Ligonsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Maygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hutchison v. Luddygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Weiss v. Temporary Investment Fund, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 308599green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| BALTIMORE COUNTY BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. Comesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 276073green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Christie Industries, Inc. Edwin C. Christie. Appeal of Edwin C. Christiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frances Sharp Lichtenstein v. Maurice Lichtenstein and Darby Farms, Inc., Maurice Lichtensteingreen | 1 | 1 |
| Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Public Utility Commissiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baur v. Abbott
neutral
2 sentences2016Our Supreme Court stated, in Aland v. P–G Publishing, 10 A.2d 5 , 7 (Pa. 1940), that “[d]espite the increasing informality of modern practice, there has been no substantial departure from the salutary rule that pleadings and proof must conform sufficiently to enable a defendant to meet at trial the same cause of action disclosed by the statement of claim.” However, this rule cannot be applied to limit a plaintiff from choosing to prove only one of two alternate theories of liability if the defendant has sufficient notice of both. 1989The statement of the court in Aland v. P-G Publishing, 337 Pa. 259, 263 , 10 A.2d 5 , 7 (1940), is as applicable today as it was nearly 50 years ago: “[djespite the increasing informality of modern practice, there has been no substantial departure from the salutary rule that pleadings and proof must conform sufficiently to enable a defendant to meet at trial the same cause of action disclosed by the statement of claim.” However, this rule *118 cannot be applied to limit a plaintiff from choosing to prove only one of two alternate theories of liability if the defendant has sufficient notice of | 3 | 1961–2016 |
Donahue v. Zoning Board of Adjustment
green
2 sentences1974As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 192 A. 2d 926 , 927 (1963): ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 1974As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 192 A. 2d 926 , 927 (1963): ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 | 3 | 1968–1974 |
Key Realty Co. Zoning Case
green
2 sentences1974As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 192 A. 2d 926 , 927 (1963): ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 1974As Mr. Chief Justice Bell so artfully stated in Furniss v. Lower Merion Twp., 412 Pa. 404, 406 , 192 A. 2d 926 , 927 (1963): ‘It is a matter of common sense and reality that a comprehensive plan is not like the law of the Medes and the Persians; it must be subject to reasonable change from time to time as conditions in an area or a township or a large neighborhood change.’ This salutary rule that comprehensive plans may be later amended by the passage of new zoning ordinances has been approved not only in Furniss, but also in Donahue v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 412 Pa. 332 , 194 A. 2d 610 (19 | 3 | 1968–1974 |
Aland v. P-G Publishing Co.
neutral
2 sentences1989The statement of the court in Aland v. P-G Publishing, 337 Pa. 259, 263 , 10 A.2d 5 , 7 (1940), is as applicable today as it was nearly 50 years ago: “[djespite the increasing informality of modern practice, there has been no substantial departure from the salutary rule that pleadings and proof must conform sufficiently to enable a defendant to meet at trial the same cause of action disclosed by the statement of claim.” However, this rule *118 cannot be applied to limit a plaintiff from choosing to prove only one of two alternate theories of liability if the defendant has sufficient notice of 1961In Aland v. P-G Publishing Co., 337 Pa. 259 (1940), 10 A. 2d 5 , we said: “Despite the increasing informality of modern practice, there has been no substantial departure from the salutary rule that pleadings and proof must conform sufficiently to enable a defendant to meet at trial the same cause of action disclosed by the statement of claim. | 2 | 1961–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Young
green
2 sentences1982For example, less than six weeks after Commonwealth v. Young, supra , our Supreme Court filed an opinion considering a summary of facts alleged in the appellee's brief, even though there was nothing in the record concerning these facts, because the appellant had "not substantially challenged that summary in any of his filings." State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 271 , 318 A.2d 910, 914 (1974). 1982For example, less than six weeks after Commonwealth v. Young, supra, our Supreme Court filed an opinion considering a summary of facts alleged in the appellee’s brief, even though there was nothing in the record concerning these facts, because the appellant had “not substantially challenged that summary in any of his filings.” State Dental Council and Examining Board v. Pollock, 457 Pa. 264, 271 , 318 A.2d 910, 914 (1974). | 2 | 1981–1982 |
Commonwealth ex rel. Meholchick v. Maroney
green
2 sentences1976However, we are aware of the salutary rule in White v. Young, 409 Pa. 562 , 186 A.2d 919 (1963), cited by the appellant to the effect that where the remedy at law is inadequate as to the part of the proceedings involving injunctive relief, a court of equity should héar the entire controversy in order to do complete justice and avoid piecemeal litigation”: Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., 445 Pa. 333, 341 , 285 A.2d 113 (1971). 1971However, we are aware of the salutary rule in White v. Young, 409 Pa. 562 , 186 A. 2d 919 (1963), cited by the appellant to the effect that where the remedy at law is inadequate as to the part of the proceedings involving injunctive relief, a court of equity should hear the entire controversy in order to do complete justice and avoid piecemeal litigation. | 2 | 1971–1976 |
White v. Young
green
2 sentences1976However, we are aware of the salutary rule in White v. Young, 409 Pa. 562 , 186 A.2d 919 (1963), cited by the appellant to the effect that where the remedy at law is inadequate as to the part of the proceedings involving injunctive relief, a court of equity should héar the entire controversy in order to do complete justice and avoid piecemeal litigation”: Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp., 445 Pa. 333, 341 , 285 A.2d 113 (1971). 1971However, we are aware of the salutary rule in White v. Young, 409 Pa. 562 , 186 A. 2d 919 (1963), cited by the appellant to the effect that where the remedy at law is inadequate as to the part of the proceedings involving injunctive relief, a court of equity should hear the entire controversy in order to do complete justice and avoid piecemeal litigation. | 2 | 1971–1976 |
Alabama v. United States
green
2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Milanovich v. United States
green
2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Haines v. Kerner
green
2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Jones
green
2 sentences1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). [25] These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: "In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen." Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff'd, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). 1974Jones v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 431 F.2d 245, 247 (10th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S. Ct. 972 (1971). 25 These cases demonstrate the salutary principle: “In the problem of racial discrimination, statistics often tell much, and Courts listen.” Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 586 (5th Cir.) (footnote omitted), aff’d, 371 U.S. 37 , 83 S. Ct. 145 (1962). | 2 | 1974–1974 |
Asay v. Hoover
neutral
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Grabill v. Barr
neutral
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Nirdlinger v. Seidel
neutral
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Walkiewicz Will
neutral
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
James' Estate
green
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Orlady v. Orlady
neutral
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Cohen Will
green
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
| Kelly's Estate green | 2 | 1960–1960 |
Morris Will
green
2 sentences1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . 1960This section sets forth in statutory form the well-established and salutary rule in the law of wills known as the “two witness rule”: Asay v. Hoover, 5 Pa. 21, 33 ; Grabill v. Barr, 5 Pa. 441, 445 ; Kelly’s Estate, 306 Pa. 551 , 160 A. 454 ; James’ Estate, 329 Pa. 273 , 198 A. 4 ; Orlady’s Estate, 336 Pa. 369 , 9 A. 2d 539 ; Morris Will, 349 Pa. 387 , 37 A. 2d 506 ; Cohen Will, 356 Pa. 161 , 51 A. 2d 704 ; Walkiewicz Will, 392 Pa. 310 , 140 A. 2d 589 . | 2 | 1960–1960 |
| Dept. of Transp. v. Manor Mines, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Commonwealth v. Carson green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. Taylor green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Rogers v. Lea County green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Commonwealth v. Fiero green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Commonwealth v. Mitchell green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Commonwealth v. Peterson green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Hill v. United States green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Cuyler v. Matthews green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| In Re Estate of Biddle green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Ballurio v. Castellini green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Feingold v. Bell of Pennsylvania green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Trimble Services, Inc. v. Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Furjanick Estate green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Commonwealth v. Turza green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Root v. Northern Cambria School District green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Bellefonte Area School Board v. Bellefonte Area Education Ass'n green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Blenko v. Schmeltz green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Dornan v. Philadelphia Housing Authority green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| McDermott v. Gekas neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.