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 6 courts 1953–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bristow v. Clevengergreen2 sentences2015In any event, even if we were to conclude that it would be appropriate to transfer the damage claim to the court of common pleas, that would be an unnecessary waste of judicial resources here, because McCulligan’s action under Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act is barred by the statute of limitations found in Section 5524(7) of the Judicial Code, as amended, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5524(7). 5 In pertinent part, Section 5524(7) of the Judicial Code provides a two-year limitation for “[a]ny other action or proceeding to recover damages for injury to person or property which is founded on negligent, intentiona 2015In Bristow, 80 F.Supp.2d at 429 , the court found that the limitations period applicable to Section 5725 of the Wiretap Act com *1141 menced after the plaintiff learned of the alleged unlawful wiretapping. | 1 | 1 |
Pashak v. Barishgreen1 sentence2004The mere possibility or even probability that the plaintiff will sustain an injury at some future time does not alter the speculative nature of the damage claim or support a cause of action for legal malpractice. * * * Thus, damages are speculative only if the uncertainty concerns the fact of damages rather than the amount. *85 Pashak, 450 A.2d at 69 (citations omitted) (emphasis in original). ¶ 17 In its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, the trial court concluded that the jury’s verdict was speculative and stated that “the jury’s only means of measuring damages was speculative as to the value of [Ap | 1 | 1 |
Goode v. Federal Title and Ins. Corp.green1 sentence2000See also, Goode v. Federal Title and Insurance Corp., 162 So.2d 269, 270 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Co. for Insurances on Lives & Granting Annuities v. Central Trust & Savings Co.green2 sentences2000A. No Actual Loss or Damage The defendant’s primary argument is that the policy is an indemnification policy for which the “plaintiff is bound to show actual loss sustained before there can be a recovery.” Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities v. Central Trust and Savings Company, 255 Pa. 322, 326 , 99 A. 910, 911 (1917). 2000A. No Actual Loss or Damage The defendant’s primary argument is that the policy is an indemnification policy for which the “plaintiff is bound to show actual loss sustained before there can be a recovery.” Pennsylvania Company for Insurances on Lives and Granting Annuities v. Central Trust and Savings Company, 255 Pa. 322, 326 , 99 A. 910, 911 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
Leslie A. Scrivner and Ashley Scrivner, by Her Next Friend and Mother, Leslie A. Scrivner v. Katherine Andrews, Saundra Roden and Colleen Westgreen1 sentence1989See Scrivner v. Andrews, supra, 816 F.2d at 262 -4 and cases cited therein; In re Scott County Master Docket, supra, 672 F. Supp. at 1203. | 1 | 1 |
Schwab v. P. J. Oesterling & Son, Inc.green2 sentences1969As was said in Schwab v. Oesterling & Son, Inc., 386 Pa. 388, 393 , 126 A. 2d 418, 420-21 (1956) : “Nor is a cause of action either retracted or lost because of the limited extent of the damages for which recovery is sought in the first instance. 1969As was said in Schwab v. Oesterling & Son, Inc., 386 Pa. 388, 393 , 126 A. 2d 418, 420-21 (1956) : “Nor is a cause of action either retracted or lost because of the limited extent of the damages for which recovery is sought in the first instance. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Floyd v. Philadelphia
neutral
1 sentence1987Although Floyd is illustrative, we nevertheless believe that the instant appeal is readily distinguishable because, unlike Floyd , there are substantial "questions of causation, of intervening or superseding cause." Id. at 390 . [6] For example, in the context of the Slavik appeal, the following "common" issues are identified: (a) Was the collapse of the Dam caused by the culpable acts of some or all of defendant [sic] and/or by their breaches of duty to class members? (b) Did the resulting debris from the collapse so clog the channel of the Conemaugh as to cause it to flood its banks, causing | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Commonwealth v. One 1978 Lincoln Mark V.
green
1 sentence1983Ass’n., supra; Burns Intern. supra; and Commonwealth v. One 1978 Lincoln Mark V, 52 Pa.Commw. 353, 415 A.2d 1000 (1980). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Shannon v. Pennsylvania Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1963This paragraph contemplates the very delays complained of and provides that ‘No claims for damages or extra costs due to delay to the Contractor’s work caused by the work of slushing contracts will be allowed and it is hereby agreed that the contract prices are submitted on this basis.’ ” Where parties to a contract provide for arbitration, disputes involving questions of law as well as facts must be submitted to the arbitrators: Shannon v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, 364 Pa. 379 , 72 A. 2d 564 (1950). 1963This paragraph contemplates the very delays complained of and provides that ‘No claims for damages or extra costs due to delay to the Contractor’s work caused by the work of slushing contracts will be allowed and it is hereby agreed that the contract prices are submitted on this basis.’ ” Where parties to a contract provide for arbitration, disputes involving questions of law as well as facts must be submitted to the arbitrators: Shannon v. Pennsylvania Electric Company, 364 Pa. 379 , 72 A. 2d 564 (1950). | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Parsons Trading Co. v. Dohan
green
2 sentences1953Paragraph 7 of plaintiff’s complaint states: “That as a result of the collision the said truck was damaged in and about the frame, rear end housing assembly, springs, rear axle, and was otherwise badly damaged.” It is an established rule of pleading that general damages need not be specifically pleaded: Parsons Trading Co. v. Dohan et al., 312 Pa. 464 , 167 A. 310 (1933); Ashley Machine Tool Co. v. P. G. 1953Paragraph 7 of plaintiff’s complaint states: “That as a result of the collision the said truck was damaged in and about the frame, rear end housing assembly, springs, rear axle, and was otherwise badly damaged.” It is an established rule of pleading that general damages need not be specifically pleaded: Parsons Trading Co. v. Dohan et al., 312 Pa. 464 , 167 A. 310 (1933); Ashley Machine Tool Co. v. P. G. | 1 | 1953–1953 |
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.