9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1926–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2019See SEIU, 104 A.3d at 506 (emphasis added). 2019See SEIU, 104 A.3d at 506 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Latimore Township v. Latimore Township Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence2018Jerrehian, 155 A.3d at 683 ; Latimore Township v. Latimore Township Zoning Hearing Board, 58 A.3d 883, 888 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 575838green2 sentences2009In Bolden, we rejected SEPTA's contention that "the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act conferred Eleventh Amendment protection upon SEPTA." 953 F.2d at 817; see also id. (explaining that "[i]f this reasoning were accepted, each state legislature apparently could confer Eleventh Amendment protection on any entity it wished, including counties and cities, by enacting a statute clothing these entities with `sovereign immunity' from suit on state claims"). 2009In Bolden, we rejected SEPTA's contention that "the Pennsylvania Sovereign Immunity Act conferred Eleventh Amendment protection upon SEPTA." 953 F.2d at 817; see also id. (explaining that "[i]f this reasoning were accepted, each state legislature apparently could confer Eleventh Amendment protection on any entity it wished, including counties and cities, by enacting a statute clothing these entities with `sovereign immunity' from suit on state claims"). | 1 | 1 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Leonard Coviello Mary Coviello, H/w Ann Coviellogreen2 sentences2002Id., 233 F.3d at 716, 719-720 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). ¶ 8 Simply put, there is no hue of validity to the argument of appellant. 2002Id., 233 F.3d at 716, 719-720 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied). ¶ 8 Simply put, there is no hue of validity to the argument of appellant. | 1 | 1 |
French's Estategreen1 sentence1941See, French’s Estate, 292 Pa. 37, 140 A. 549 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re: Appeals of A.K. Jerrehian, Jr. From the Decision Dated December 9, 2014 of the ZHB of The Twp. of Lower Merion
green
1 sentence2018Jerrehian, 155 A.3d at 683 ; Latimore Township v. Latimore Township Zoning Hearing Board, 58 A.3d 883, 888 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Grant
green
2 sentences2004Cf. Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 62-63 & nn. 12-13, 813 A.2d 726 , 734-35 & nn. 12-13 (2002). 2004Cf. Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48 , 62-63 & nn. 12-13, 813 A.2d 726 , 734-35 & nn. 12-13 (2002). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Flightways Corp. v. Keystone Helicopter Corp.
green
1 sentence2002While vye recognize that parties should be bound by an agreement to arbitrate, see, e.g., [Allstate v.] *997 Taylor, 434 Pa. 21, 252 A.2d [618] at 620 [ (1969) ], we must also respect the countervailing principle that parties should not be required to arbitrate those issues that fall outside the scope of the agreement, see, e.g., Flightways Corp., 331 A.2d at 185 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
La Belle Coke Co. v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1934But the title which the purchaser takes must be “perfect on its face” to relieve him of a countervailing rule, namely, that the purchaser of an “equitable interest or title stands in the shoes of the grantor, and takes it subject to all equities to which it was subject in the hands of the person from whom he purchased: Chew v. Barnet, 11 S. & R. 389; La Belle Coke Co. v. Smith, 221 Pa. 642 . | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Groner v. Supreme Tent of the Knights of the Maccabees of the World
green
1 sentence1926Thus the presumption of life continues till it is displaced by a more potent one, which, however, has no retroactive force; and, indeed, it would be of little use if it had, for to leave the time of the death still uncertain would leave a perplexity which it was its purpose to remove.” It is clear from this case and from numerous cases which have followed it, although many of them are manifestly based on dicta, that there is in Pennsylvania a presumption that life continues for a period of seven years after a man is last heard of, and if there is no evidence of some special peril to him during | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.