9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1826–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
White v. Associates in Counseling and Child Guidance, Inc.green1 sentence2005The non-profit corporation still retains the ultimate authority to restrict that power through an appropriate bylaw provision, as provided in the introductory clause. [1] See White v. Associates in Counseling & Child Guidance, Inc., 767 A.2d 638, 642 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (object of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent and courts must give effect to all statutory provisions so that none are rendered mere surplusage). [2] Section 5504(a) of the Law grants ultimate authority to the members to alter bylaws: The members entitled to vote shall have the power to ad | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Carson
green
1 sentence2023Cotntnonwealth v, Carson, 913 A.2d 220 ( Pa. 2006) (Trial court did not abuse its discretion or show partiality when it questioned awitness on his motives). 12 Additionally, the jury was well aware that this Court was not questioning Wise's credibility because of this Court's introductory instruction. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of General Services
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
George Whalley Co. v. National City Bank
green
2 sentences1985The only sensible reading of “the item” in subsection (c) would therefore be that it refers to any item to which the bank is attempting to apply “the preclusion of subsection (b).” The bank points out that a court in Ohio has held that “the item” in section 4406(c) refers to “the first item” George Whalley Company v. National City Bank of Cleveland, 55 Ohio App.2d 205 , 380 N.E.2d 742 (1977). 1985The only sensible reading of “the item” in subsection (c) would therefore be that it refers to any item to which the bank is attempting to apply “the preclusion of subsection (b).” The bank points out that a court in Ohio has held that “the item” in section 4406(c) refers to “the first item” George Whalley Company v. National City Bank of Cleveland, 55 Ohio App.2d 205 , 380 N.E.2d 742 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Miles v. Gallagher
neutral
2 sentences1974Miles v. Gallagher, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 338 , 168 A. 2d 805 (1961). 1974Miles v. Gallagher, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 338 , 168 A. 2d 805 (1961). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Cudahy v. First Wisconsin Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1959A similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in In re Cudahy’s Will, 251 Wis. 116 , 28 N. W. 2d 340 . 1959A similar conclusion was reached by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in In re Cudahy’s Will, 251 Wis. 116 , 28 N. W. 2d 340 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Conner's Estate
green
2 sentences1942The introductory clause reads: “I give and bequeath all I may die Possessed of to my three Children.” True, she then makes an absolute devise of No. 7056 Germantown Avenue to Norman: Conner’s Est., 302 Pa. 534 , 153 A. 730 . 1942The introductory clause reads: “I give and bequeath all I may die Possessed of to my three Children.” True, she then makes an absolute devise of No. 7056 Germantown Avenue to Norman: Conner’s Est., 302 Pa. 534 , 153 A. 730 . | 1 | 1942–1942 |
M'Cullough's Heirs v. Gilmore
neutral
1 sentence1895In McCullough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. 370 , where substantially the same expression was used, this court said: “ These words, and the like of them, are generally carried down into the corpus of the will, to show that the testator meant to dispose of his whole interest in a particular devise, unless words are used which plainly indicate an intent to limit it.” Numerous cases to the same effect are cited in Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. 87 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Schriver v. Meyer
neutral
1 sentence1895In McCullough v. Gilmore, 11 Pa. 370 , where substantially the same expression was used, this court said: “ These words, and the like of them, are generally carried down into the corpus of the will, to show that the testator meant to dispose of his whole interest in a particular devise, unless words are used which plainly indicate an intent to limit it.” Numerous cases to the same effect are cited in Schriver v. Meyer, 19 Pa. 87 . | 1 | 1895–1895 |
Cook v. Holmes
neutral
1 sentence1826The devise, in question was in these words,I give to my sons John, James, and William, all my other lands lying in Sudbury.”- Mr. Justice Sedgwick, who delivered the opinion of the court, said, “We are inquiring for the intention of the testator, and it is clear, from avi,ew of the whole interest, the preamble, the provision he makes for. his children, and the ultimate disposition of the residue, that he intended a complete disposal of all the property he should .leave behind him; and I have no doubt he intended his sons should take an estate of inheritance.” To the same purpose is Cook and ot | 1 | 1826–1826 |
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.