9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 7 courts 1998–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Latrobe Speedway, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Unity Townshipgreen2 sentences2009Zitelli, 850 A.2d at 771 , n.3 (citing Latrobe Speedway Inc., 553 Pa. 583, 592 , 720 A.2d 127, 132 (1998)). 2009Zitelli, 850 A.2d at 771 , n.3 (citing Latrobe Speedway Inc., 553 Pa. 583, 592 , 720 A.2d 127, 132 (1998)). | 2 | 3 |
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.red2 sentences2002M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 15-18 (1972). 2000Id. at 15-18 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Valle-Velezgreen1 sentence2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Maguigangreen2 sentences2011Commonwealth v. Maguigan, 511 Pa. 112, 125 , 511 A.2d 1327, 1334 (1986). 2011Commonwealth v. Maguigan, 511 Pa. 112, 125 , 511 A.2d 1327, 1334 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
Greene v. Oliver Realty, Inc.green2 sentences2000Greene v. Oliver Realty Inc., 363 Pa. Super. 534, 543 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1196 (1987). 2000Greene v. Oliver Realty Inc., 363 Pa. Super. 534, 543 , 526 A.2d 1192, 1196 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Pappas v. Zoning Board of Adjustmentgreen1 sentence1998Where the zoning ordinance in question fails to specify a period of time following which a *592 nonconforming use is considered to be abandoned, “the party-asserting abandonment must introduce evidence to establish (1) an intent to abandon the use, and (2) that the use was abandoned.” Id. at 156, 589 A.2d at 678 (Zappala, J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Peters
green
2 sentences2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c 2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lutwak v. United States
green
2 sentences2012The first position on the spousal testimony privilege (sham marriage) was originally adopted in Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 , 73 S.Ct. 481 , 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953), a case that dealt with a conspiracy involving the War Brides Act and “pretend” marriages undertaken for the sole purpose of gaming admission of aliens to the United States without having to undergo the long delay involved in qualifying for proper immigration. 2012The first position on the spousal testimony privilege (sham marriage) was originally adopted in Lutwak v. United States, 344 U.S. 604 , 73 S.Ct. 481 , 97 L.Ed. 593 (1953), a case that dealt with a conspiracy involving the War Brides Act and “pretend” marriages undertaken for the sole purpose of gaming admission of aliens to the United States without having to undergo the long delay involved in qualifying for proper immigration. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Richard Clark
green
1 sentence2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Com. v. Savage
neutral
1 sentence2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 2012–2012 |
United States v. Alfred Lee Apodaca
green
1 sentence2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Commonwealth v. Reese
green
1 sentence2012Commonwealth v. Valle-Velez, 995 A.2d 1264, 1268 (Pa.Super.2010), appeal denied, 608 Pa. 666 , 13 A.3d 478 (2010). 4 “Pennsylvania law gen erally imposes the burden of proof on the party challenging the privilege.” Reese, supra. The issue in the present case is whether the spousal testimony privilege of Section 5913 is available to Mr. Gardner who allegedly married Appellant partly to avoid giving testimony against her in a criminal proceeding; we have uncovered three prevailing approaches to the reach of the spousal testimony privilege: (1) the privilege is not available if the marriage was c | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Zitelli v. ZONING HEARING BD. OF MUNHALL
green
1 sentence2009Zitelli, 850 A.2d at 771 , n.3 (citing Latrobe Speedway Inc., 553 Pa. 583, 592 , 720 A.2d 127, 132 (1998)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.