9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1936–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Hackett, R.green2 sentences2014See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 626 Pa. 567 , 99 A.3d 11, 39 (2014) (Castille, C.J., concurring) (explaining similar incentives with Atkins claims). 2014See Commonwealth v. Hackett, 626 Pa. 567 , 99 A.3d 11, 39 (2014) (Castille, C.J., concurring) (explaining similar incentives with Atkins claims). | 2 | 2 |
Cambria-Stoltz Enterprises v. TNT Investmentsgreen1 sentence2015See Cambria-Stoltz Enters. v. TNT Invs., 747 A.2d 947, 952 (Pa. Super. 2000). 24 Notably, each of the claim forms completed and signed by LeAnn on May 6, 2003 included the following: “WARNING: Any person who knowingly presents a false or fraudulent claim for payment of a loss or benefit or knowingly presents false information in an application for insurance is guilty of a crime and may be subject to fines and confinement in prison.” Conseco Claim Form, No. CA-458 (07/02), at 1 (unnumbered). - 31 - J-A19039-15 Conseco’s subsequent receipt of differing disability dates, which indicated later dat | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Luriegreen2 sentences1990Recently, the Supreme Court discussed the mens rea of the offense in Commonwealth v. Lurie, 524 Pa. 56 , 569 A.2d 329 (1990), as follows: Subsection (a)(7) of § 1407 makes it unlawful to submit a claim which misrepresents the service or merchandise delivered, the date or dates of delivery, the identity of the person or persons who received the services or merchandise, the identity of the provider, etc. Again, it is fundamental that to purposely misrepresent any of the information described in subsection (a)(7), is to knowingly present a false or fraudulent claim for payment. 1990Recently, the Supreme Court discussed the mens rea of the offense in Commonwealth v. Lurie, 524 Pa. 56 , 569 A.2d 329 (1990), as follows: Subsection (a)(7) of § 1407 makes it unlawful to submit a claim which misrepresents the service or merchandise delivered, the date or dates of delivery, the identity of the person or persons who received the services or merchandise, the identity of the provider, etc. Again, it is fundamental that to purposely misrepresent any of the information described in subsection (a)(7), is to knowingly present a false or fraudulent claim for payment. | 1 | 1 |
Sferra v. Urlinggreen2 sentences1941Therefore the title holder may waive the benefit of the statute, and may state in his pleadings, or in his testimony in the proceedings, that he did in fact enter into an oral agreement when the title was conveyed to him, and, if he does so state, the oral agreement will be en *281 forced by the court: Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance Company, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, 226 ; Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co., 223 Pa. 247, 251 , 72 A. 512, 513 ; Sferra v. Urling, 328 Pa. 161, 167, 168 , 195 A. 422, 425, 426 . 1941Therefore the title holder may waive the benefit of the statute, and may state in his pleadings, or in his testimony in the proceedings, that he did in fact enter into an oral agreement when the title was conveyed to him, and, if he does so state, the oral agreement will be en *281 forced by the court: Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance Company, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, 226 ; Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co., 223 Pa. 247, 251 , 72 A. 512, 513 ; Sferra v. Urling, 328 Pa. 161, 167, 168 , 195 A. 422, 425, 426 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2014Retrospective competency claims, like retrospective claims of intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), obviously are ripe for abuse by anti-death penalty advocacy groups like the FCDO, by like-minded experts in their effective employ parroting their boilerplate opinions, and by defendants themselves, who have nothing to lose by abetting a fraudulent claim. 2014Retrospective competency claims, like retrospective claims of intellectual disability under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (2002), obviously are ripe for abuse by anti-death penalty advocacy groups like the FCDO, by like-minded experts in their effective employ parroting their boilerplate opinions, and by defendants themselves, who have nothing to lose by abetting a fraudulent claim. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Kirkland
green
1 sentence2015Kirkland, supra; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4117(a)(2). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Lucius J. Breeland v. Security Insurance Company of New Haven, Connecticut
green
1 sentence1986“We are of the opinion that when one is convicted of a felony and subsequently attempts to benefit from the commission, the record of his guilt should be a bar to his recovery. ” In the case of Breeland v. Security Insurance Company of New Haven, 421 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1969), the court held that an insureds conviction for mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1341 for using the mails to submit a fraudulent claim under an insurance policy constitutes an absolute bar to the insureds’ subsequent civil action under the policy of insurance. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Ott
green
2 sentences1970On appeal, appellant contends that Prussel’s statement was admissible and should have been received as the declaration of a coconspirator, because the conspiracy, including the fraudulent claim for insurance proceeds, had not yet ended, citing Commonwealth v. Ott, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 647 , 36 A. 2d 838 (1944). 1970On appeal, appellant contends that Prussel’s statement was admissible and should have been received as the declaration of a coconspirator, because the conspiracy, including the fraudulent claim for insurance proceeds, had not yet ended, citing Commonwealth v. Ott, 154 Pa. Superior Ct. 647 , 36 A. 2d 838 (1944). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance
green
1 sentence1941Therefore the title holder may waive the benefit of the statute, and may state in his pleadings, or in his testimony in the proceedings, that he did in fact enter into an oral agreement when the title was conveyed to him, and, if he does so state, the oral agreement will be en *281 forced by the court: Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance Company, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, 226 ; Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co., 223 Pa. 247, 251 , 72 A. 512, 513 ; Sferra v. Urling, 328 Pa. 161, 167, 168 , 195 A. 422, 425, 426 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences1941Therefore the title holder may waive the benefit of the statute, and may state in his pleadings, or in his testimony in the proceedings, that he did in fact enter into an oral agreement when the title was conveyed to him, and, if he does so state, the oral agreement will be en *281 forced by the court: Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance Company, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, 226 ; Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co., 223 Pa. 247, 251 , 72 A. 512, 513 ; Sferra v. Urling, 328 Pa. 161, 167, 168 , 195 A. 422, 425, 426 . 1941Therefore the title holder may waive the benefit of the statute, and may state in his pleadings, or in his testimony in the proceedings, that he did in fact enter into an oral agreement when the title was conveyed to him, and, if he does so state, the oral agreement will be en *281 forced by the court: Prospect Dye Works v. Federal Insurance Company, 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, 226 ; Hamnett v. Monongahela Trust Co., 223 Pa. 247, 251 , 72 A. 512, 513 ; Sferra v. Urling, 328 Pa. 161, 167, 168 , 195 A. 422, 425, 426 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Black, Exrs. v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences1936The court below correctly found that “the said agreement of November 23, 1915, was a false, fictitious and forged instrument,” that “the assertion by the defendants, Gibson, Forrester and Hoffman, of the right to continue in possession of the premises by reason of said alleged instrument of November 23, 1915, was the assertion of a false and fraudulent claim . . . and was a fraud upon the landowners,” and that “the landowners never directly or indirectly agreed to extend the time for the removal of the equipment from said premises, or directly or indirectly consented to the maintenance of the 1936The court below correctly found that “the said agreement of November 23, 1915, was a false, fictitious and forged instrument,” that “the assertion by the defendants, Gibson, Forrester and Hoffman, of the right to continue in possession of the premises by reason of said alleged instrument of November 23, 1915, was the assertion of a false and fraudulent claim . . . and was a fraud upon the landowners,” and that “the landowners never directly or indirectly agreed to extend the time for the removal of the equipment from said premises, or directly or indirectly consented to the maintenance of the | 1 | 1936–1936 |
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.