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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1919–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re: C.M.C., a minor, Appeal of C.L.C.green2 sentences2025See C.M.C., 140 A.3d at 709 (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(a) cmt.). 2022See In re C.M.C., 140 A.3d at 709 (citing 23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2503(a) cmt.). | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Substitute Nomination Certificate of Barrgreen1 sentence2022In addition, “proper service is a prerequisite to the exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant or respondent.” In re Barr, 956 A.2d 1083, 1085 (Pa. Cmwlth.), aff’d sub nom. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Nominating Petition of Gerenagreen1 sentence2022Further, the candidate’s appearance at the hearing “cannot cure defective service when service is a mandatory requirement.” In re Gerena, 972 A.2d 86, 90 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Meslergreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Mesler, 732 A.2d 21, 25 (Pa. Cmwith. 1999) (finding invocation of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117(c) was inappropriate where Appellant’s counsel indicated Appellant was expected to be present and was on his way); See also Commonwealth v. McConley, 754 A.2d 724, 727 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (finding appearance by Appellant’s counsel at de novo hearing satisfied the appearance requirement of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 86 since the only matter at issue was that of jurisdiction); See also Commonwealth v. Kyle, 453 A.2d 668, 669 (Pa. Super. 1982) (interpreting former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117 to require th | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kylegreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Mesler, 732 A.2d 21, 25 (Pa. Cmwith. 1999) (finding invocation of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117(c) was inappropriate where Appellant’s counsel indicated Appellant was expected to be present and was on his way); See also Commonwealth v. McConley, 754 A.2d 724, 727 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (finding appearance by Appellant’s counsel at de novo hearing satisfied the appearance requirement of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 86 since the only matter at issue was that of jurisdiction); See also Commonwealth v. Kyle, 453 A.2d 668, 669 (Pa. Super. 1982) (interpreting former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117 to require th | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McConleygreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Mesler, 732 A.2d 21, 25 (Pa. Cmwith. 1999) (finding invocation of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117(c) was inappropriate where Appellant’s counsel indicated Appellant was expected to be present and was on his way); See also Commonwealth v. McConley, 754 A.2d 724, 727 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (finding appearance by Appellant’s counsel at de novo hearing satisfied the appearance requirement of former Pa.R.Crim.P. 86 since the only matter at issue was that of jurisdiction); See also Commonwealth v. Kyle, 453 A.2d 668, 669 (Pa. Super. 1982) (interpreting former Pa.R.Crim.P. 1117 to require th | 1 | 1 |
In re Private Road of Brubakergreen2 sentences2009Brubaker, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 418 , 352 A.2d 566, 568 (1976) (observing that an appearance at a hearing normally waives any infirmities in notice). 2009Brubaker, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 418 , 352 A.2d 566, 568 (1976) (observing that an appearance at a hearing normally waives any infirmities in notice). | 1 | 1 |
Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, Inc.green1 sentence1925In Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, 277 Pa. 363, 367 (mentioned in Tate-Jones & Co. v. Union Co., 281 Pa. 448, 454 ), where a clause to the same effect as the one now before us appeared in the contract, we recently said: “Parties having taken the precaution to put their agreement in writing, may further safeguard their rights by ......a stipulation [that the writing contains the agreement in full and that it cannot be added to except by another signed agreement], otherwise a contracting party is powerless to protect himself against parol modi *410 fications of Ms solemn contract......; [this] st | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shapiro v. Philadelphia
green
2 sentences1941If their appearance made them parties defendant to the original action, then no scire facias to bring them in as additional defendants could issue against them: Shapiro v. Phila., 306 Pa. 216 , 159 A. 29 . 1941If their appearance made them parties defendant to the original action, then no scire facias to bring them in as additional defendants could issue against them: Shapiro v. Phila., 306 Pa. 216 , 159 A. 29 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Walworth v. Abel
green
1 sentence1938Plaintiff, as surviving executor, could not have recovered the money from VanArtsdalen as substituted trustee: Walworth v. Abel, 52 Pa. 370 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Tate-Jones & Co. v. Union Electric Steel Co.
green
1 sentence1925In Gross v. Exeter Machine Works, 277 Pa. 363, 367 (mentioned in Tate-Jones & Co. v. Union Co., 281 Pa. 448, 454 ), where a clause to the same effect as the one now before us appeared in the contract, we recently said: “Parties having taken the precaution to put their agreement in writing, may further safeguard their rights by ......a stipulation [that the writing contains the agreement in full and that it cannot be added to except by another signed agreement], otherwise a contracting party is powerless to protect himself against parol modi *410 fications of Ms solemn contract......; [this] st | 1 | 1925–1925 |
Jeannette v. Roehme
neutral
1 sentence1919Yet it has uniformly been held that defects in, or even want of, service of process in the court of common pleas is cured by an appearance and defense on the merits: Jeannette Borough v. Roehme, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 33 ; affirmed in 197 Pa. 230 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Borough v. Roehme
neutral
1 sentence1919Yet it has uniformly been held that defects in, or even want of, service of process in the court of common pleas is cured by an appearance and defense on the merits: Jeannette Borough v. Roehme, 9 Pa. Superior Ct. 33 ; affirmed in 197 Pa. 230 . | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.