execution requirement (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

execution requirement in Pennsylvania

9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1842–2025 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
In re Estate of Fieldgreen
pasuperct · 2008 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Compare Majority Opinion, slip op. at 25 (“The execution requirement and the bar on extrinsic evidence act precisely to prevent courts from speculating regarding a testator’s intent under such circumstances . . ..”), with In re Estate of Field, 953 A.2d 1281, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permitting the use of extrinsic evidence to show that decedent intended for an unsigned trust amendment to be effective). [J-61-2016][M.O. – Dougherty, J.] - 2

2017Compare Majority Opinion, at 45, 152 A.3d at 262 (“The execution requirement and the bar on extrinsic evidence act precisely to prevent courts from speculating regarding a testator’s intent under such circumstances .... ”), with In re Estate of Field, 953 A.2d 1281, 1288 (Pa. Super. 2008) (permitting the use of extrinsic evidence to show that decedent intended for an unsigned trust amendment to be effective).

22
Yocca v. Pittsburgh Steelers Sports, Inc.green
pa · 2004 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025TCO at 4; see also id. (summarizing averments in the Complaint that detail the alleged pre-Agreement representations made by Appellant to Appellees).

11
Est. of Robert H. Agnew v. Ross, D.green
pa · 2017 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020See also Estate of Agnew, 152 A.3d at 262 (the execution requirement and the bar on extrinsic evidence prevent speculation regarding a testator’s intent when that intent is properly reflected only in an executed testamentary document”).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Hill v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole green
pacommwct · 1985
2 sentences

2009Prebella; Hill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 140 , 492 A.2d 80 (1985).

2009Prebella; Hill v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 89 Pa.Cmwlth. 140 , 492 A.2d 80 (1985).

12009–2009
Melvin R. Pierson v. Walter H. Grant, Sheriff of Linn County, Iowa green
ca8 · 1975
1 sentence

1990Id. at 164 .

11990–1990
Sweigart v. Richards green
pa · 1848
1 sentence

1902The case of Sweigart v. Richards, 8 Pa. 436 , is not an exception; it simply decides that certain evidence is of “ equal authority.” Under the act of 1895, the document or writing offered for purpose of comparison must be “admitted to be genuine,” or “proven to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine.” The execution of the test paper offered by the plaintiff in this case was seriously in conflict.

11902–1902
Floyd v. Browne green
pa · 1829
1 sentence

1898In Floyd v. Browne, 1 R. 121 , it was held that the judgment against the plaintiff in the execution was a bar to a subsequent assumpsit against the sheriff, although the judgment had been fruitless as to execution.

11898–1898
Vickroy v. Skelley neutral
pa · 1826
1 sentence

1842Per Curiam. — The certificate of the justice sets forth affirmatively an execution of the rule in accordance with the notice, in regard to all things but the house appointed for the appearance' of the parties; but according to Selin v. Snyder, ( 7 Serg. & Rawle 172 ), and Vickroy v. Skelley, ( 14 Serg. & Rawle 372 ), the want of that is fatal.

11842–1842

Where else courts name it

MA 86 (1982–2026) OH 46 (1978–2025) NY 20 (1892–2025) GA 18 (1912–2025) CA 10 (1945–2024) LA 9 (1916–2018) FL 9 (1980–2026) PA 9 (1842–2025) NJ 7 (1979–2021) TX 7 (1977–2014) IN 7 (1892–2008) IL 5 (1977–2026) WV 4 (1897–2026) AL 4 (1895–2010) TN 4 (1958–2007) MI 4 (1976–2008) AR 3 (2005–2010) MO 3 (1911–2008) CT 3 (1937–2023) NC 2 (1934–1958) WI 2 (1970–2026) CO 2 (1995–2025) MS 2 (1989–2023) ND 2 (1908–1999) KY 2 (1876–2014) VT 2 (2014–2018) NE 2 (1896–1981)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check