9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc.green2 sentences2021Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification requirement as unimportant would only encourage non- compli 2020Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification - 15 - J-A21020-19 requirement as unimportant would only en | 3 | 3 |
Rupel v. Bluesteingreen2 sentences2021Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification requirement as unimportant would only encourage non- compli 2020Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification - 15 - J-A21020-19 requirement as unimportant would only en | 3 | 3 |
Atlantic Credit & Finance, Inc. v. Giulianagreen2 sentences2021Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification requirement as unimportant would only encourage non- compli 2020Credit and Finance, Inc. v. Giuliana, 829 A.2d 340, 344 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation omitted) (holding, the verification requirement is essential to the pleading “because without it a pleading is mere narration, and amounts to nothing”); see also Monroe Contract Corp. v. Harrison Square, Inc., 405 A.2d 954, 958 (Pa. Super. 1979) (holding, non-compliance with verification requirement will not be condoned); Rupel v. Bluestein, 421 A.2d 406, 414 (Pa. Super. 1980) (stating, to hold unexplained and unexcused non-compliance with verification - 15 - J-A21020-19 requirement as unimportant would only en | 3 | 3 |
Giacobello v. Board of Electionsgreen2 sentences2023Election for Off. of Prothonotary, 849 A.2d 230, 239 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Giacobello v. Bd. of Elections of Borough of Mount Union, Cnty. of Huntingdon, 322 A.2d 429, 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974)) (internal citation and some quotation marks omitted). 2004Id. at 431 (citing to Giacobello Trial Ct. Op.). | 1 | 2 |
Bethlehem Mines v. WORKER'S COMPENSATION APPEAL BOARDgreen1 sentence2023Election for Off. of Prothonotary, 849 A.2d 230, 239 (Pa. 2004) (quoting Giacobello v. Bd. of Elections of Borough of Mount Union, Cnty. of Huntingdon, 322 A.2d 429, 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974)) (internal citation and some quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employeesgreen1 sentence2022See Zorica v. AFSCME District Council 33, 686 A.2d 461 , 462 n.1, 465 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (explaining that a “fair share fee,” which is the equivalent of an “agency shop fee” or “agency fee,” is established by a fair share fee or agency shop agreement, by which an employer “deducts fees from the pay of employees who are represented by, but not members of, a union; these fees are transmitted to the union to pay nonmembers’ proportionate share of the costs | 1 | 1 |
Zorica v. AFSME District Council 33green1 sentence2022See Zorica v. AFSCME District Council 33, 686 A.2d 461 , 462 n.1, 465 n.12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996), abrogated on other grounds by Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018) (explaining that a “fair share fee,” which is the equivalent of an “agency shop fee” or “agency fee,” is established by a fair share fee or agency shop agreement, by which an employer “deducts fees from the pay of employees who are represented by, but not members of, a union; these fees are transmitted to the union to pay nonmembers’ proportionate share of the costs | 1 | 1 |
LaBriola v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authoritygreen2 sentences2016See LaBriola v. SEPTA [ 227 Pa.Super. 305 ], 323 A.2d 9 (Pa.Super.Ct.1974). 5 This pleading was likewise not properly verified by counsel, but likewise not objected to by [Appellee]. 2016See LaBriola v. SEPTA [ 227 Pa.Super. 305 ], 323 A.2d 9 (Pa.Super.Ct.1974). 5 This pleading was likewise not properly verified by counsel, but likewise not objected to by [Appellee]. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Podolak v. Tobyhanna Township Board of Supervisors
green
1 sentence2017Bd. of Sup’rs, 37 A.3d 1283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). 4 Moreover, the verification requirement does not apply to a pleading that raises issues of law. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Devlin v. City of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2004While the Commonwealth Court was troubled by this additional requirement, suggesting that hinging the right to an exemption on it was unreasonable and arbitrary, 809 A.2d at 993 , we do not find this verification requirement alone to raise uniformity concerns. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.