fundamental purpose rule (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

fundamental purpose rule in Pennsylvania

9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1978–2025 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
MacGregor v. Mediq Inc.green
pa · 1990 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Moreover, prejudice, in turn, must be more than a mere detriment to the other party because any amendment requested certainly will be designed to strengthen the legal position of the amending party and correspondingly weaken the position of the adverse party.” MacGregor v. Mediq Inc., 395 Pa. Super. 221, 227 , 576 A.2d 1123, 1126 (1990). (citations and quotation marks omitted).

2001Moreover, prejudice, in turn, must be more than a mere detriment to the other party because any amendment requested certainly will be designed to strengthen the legal position of the amending party and correspondingly weaken the position of the adverse party.” MacGregor v. Mediq Inc., 395 Pa. Super. 221, 227 , 576 A.2d 1123, 1126 (1990). (citations and quotation marks omitted).

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Biglan v. Biglan green
pa · 1984
2 sentences

2025“The fundamental purpose of this rule is to prevent cases from turning on purely technical defects.” Biglan, 479 A.2d at 1026 .

1990“The fundamental purpose of this rule is to prevent cases from turning on purely technical defects.” Id., 330 Pa.Superior Ct. at 521, 479 A.2d at 1026 .

41986–2025
Capobianchi v. Bic Corp. green
pasuperct · 1995
1 sentence

2025“The timeliness of the request to amend is a factor to be considered, but it is to be considered only insofar as it presents a question of prejudice to the opposing party, as by loss of witnesses or eleventh hour surprise.” Capobianchi, 666 A.2d at 347 .

12025–2025
Newcomer v. Civil Service Commission green
pacommwct · 1986
1 sentence

2017Id.

12017–2017
Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Commission green
scotus · 1977
1 sentence

1988This free trade purpose is not confined to the freedom to trade with only one state; it is a freedom to trade with any state,, to engage in commerce across all state boundaries.” 429 U.S. at 334-5 .

11988–1988
Solomon v. Luria green
pasuperct · 1968
2 sentences

1984Keller v. Keller Motor Co., 386 Pa. 56 , 124 A.2d 105 (1956); Solomon v. Luria, 213 Pa.Super. 87 , 246 A.2d 435 (1968).

1984Keller v. Keller Motor Co., 386 Pa. 56 , 124 A.2d 105 (1956); Solomon v. Luria, 213 Pa.Super. 87 , 246 A.2d 435 (1968).

11984–1984
Keller v. R. C. Keller Motor Co. green
pa · 1956
2 sentences

1984Keller v. Keller Motor Co., 386 Pa. 56 , 124 A.2d 105 (1956); Solomon v. Luria, 213 Pa.Super. 87 , 246 A.2d 435 (1968).

1984Keller v. Keller Motor Co., 386 Pa. 56 , 124 A.2d 105 (1956); Solomon v. Luria, 213 Pa.Super. 87 , 246 A.2d 435 (1968).

11984–1984
Norwood v. Judd green
calctapp · 1949
2 sentences

1978Where, by applying the rule, the public cannot be protected because the transaction has been completed, where no serious moral turpitude is involved, where the defendant is the one guilty of the greatest moral fault, and where to apply the rule will be to permit the defendant to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, the rule should not be applied.” Norwood v. Judd, 93 Cal. App. 2d 276, 289 , 209 P. 2d 24 .

1978Where, by applying the rule, the public cannot be protected because the transaction has been completed, where no serious moral turpitude is involved, where the defendant is the one guilty of the greatest moral fault, and where to apply the rule will be to permit the defendant to be unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, the rule should not be applied.” Norwood v. Judd, 93 Cal. App. 2d 276, 289 , 209 P. 2d 24 .

11978–1978

Where else courts name it

CA 21 (1954–2025) PA 9 (1978–2025) NJ 7 (1958–2022) NV 5 (2011–2017) CO 5 (1981–2025) TX 4 (1992–2010) IL 4 (1970–2025) NY 3 (1996–2025) DC 2 (1989–1997) HI 2 (1986–1993) OH 2 (1997–2021) MA 2 (2001–2013) FL 2 (1960–1983) WA 2 (1982–2021) KS 2 (2018–2022)

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