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 4 courts 1983–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Dempstergreen2 sentences2022Dempster, 187 A.3d at 272 (citation omitted). 2022Commonwealth v. Dempster, 187 A.3d 266, 272 (Pa. Super. 2018)(en banc) (citation omitted). -4- J-S26041-22 Here, Appellant timely appealed, but neither at his sentencing hearing nor in his post-sentence motion did he claim his sentence was excessive. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Paoli Railroad Yard PCB Litigationgreen2 sentences2004Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 786-87 (3d Cir. 1994) (interpreting Pennsylvania law to set forth a four-step test to determine when medical monitoring is appropriate physical injury not a necessary element)). 2004Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 786-87 (3d Cir. 1994) (interpreting Pennsylvania law to set forth a four-step test to determine when medical monitoring is appropriate, physical injury not a necessary element)). | 2 | 2 |
Kachinski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Boardgreen2 sentences1992The issue here is whether claimant made a good faith attempt to follow through on employment opportunities presented to him by employer’s job referral service. 3 In Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240 , 532 A.2d 374 (1987), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established the following four-step analysis for evaluating modification petitions: 1. 1992The issue here is whether claimant made a good faith attempt to follow through on employment opportunities presented to him by employer’s job referral service. 3 In Kachinski v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Vepco Construction Co.), 516 Pa. 240 , 532 A.2d 374 (1987), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court established the following four-step analysis for evaluating modification petitions: 1. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Edmundsgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Edmunds, 586 A.2d 887 (Pa. 1991) (announcing a four-step analysis that parties should brief when advancing a claim under the state constitution, separate and apart from the federal). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bastongreen2 sentences1983Washington v. Maroney, supra. Id., 242 Pa.Superior Ct. 98 at 107, 363 A.2d 1178, 1183 (footnotes omitted.) [2] We will follow the above four step analysis. 1983Washington v. Maroney, supra. Id., 242 Pa.Superior Ct. 98 at 107, 363 A.2d 1178, 1183 (footnotes omitted.) 2 We will follow the above four step analysis. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.