Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1938–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2015In an action based upon a violation of the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff is required to establish the following: “(1) that an employee or agent of [the defendant] served the [plaintiff] alcoholic beverages at a time when he [or she] was visibly intoxicated; and (2) that this violation of the statute proximately caused his [or her] injuries.” Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524, 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Johnson v. Harris, 419 Pa. Super. 541, 548-550 , 615 A.2d 771, 775 (1992)). 2015In an action based upon a violation of the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff is required to establish the following: “(1) that an employee or agent of [the defendant] served the [plaintiff] alcoholic beverages at a time when he [or she] was visibly intoxicated; and (2) that this violation of the statute proximately caused his [or her] injuries.” Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524, 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Johnson v. Harris, 419 Pa. Super. 541, 548-550 , 615 A.2d 771, 775 (1992)). | 3 | 3 |
Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc.green2 sentences2015JUDICIAL DISTRICT WRENCE COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 9 ( Circulated 12/03/2015 04:19 PM In an action based upon a violation of the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff is required to establish the following: "(1) that an employee or agent of [the defendant] served the [plaintiff] alcoholic beverages at a time when he [or she] was visibly intoxicated; and (2) that this violation of the statute proximately caused his [or her] injuries." Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524, 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Johnson v. Harris, 419 Pa. Super. 541, 548-550 , 615 A.2d 771, 775 (1992)). 2015In an action based upon a violation of the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiff is required to establish the following: “(1) that an employee or agent of [the defendant] served the [plaintiff] alcoholic beverages at a time when he [or she] was visibly intoxicated; and (2) that this violation of the statute proximately caused his [or her] injuries.” Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524, 525, 526 (Pa. Super. 1998) (citing Johnson v. Harris, 419 Pa. Super. 541, 548-550 , 615 A.2d 771, 775 (1992)). | 3 | 3 |
Lyndes, A. v. Penn Central Corp.green1 sentence2022Lyndes v. Penn Central Corp., 254 A.3d 725, 732 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Cohen v. Lupogreen1 sentence2015Cohen, 927 F.2d at 365 (citations modified). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simodejka v. Williams
green
2 sentences1964The cause of action was the violation of duty of one, or both, of the drivers involved in the accident, not the damages caused by the collision: Simodejka v. Williams, 360 Pa. 332 , 62 A. 2d 17 (1948).” The Supreme Court, in London, supra, after pointing out (pp. 499-500) that while the Pennsylvania State court trials are not bound by Federal court procedural rules, particularly specified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which provides for the filing of a counterclaim in an action based upon a claim arising out of the same occurrence or transaction; and went on to say that the procedural 1964The cause of action was the violation of duty of one, or both, of the drivers involved in the accident, not the damages caused by the collision: Simodejka v. Williams, 360 Pa. 332 , 62 A. 2d 17 (1948).” The Supreme Court, in London, supra, after pointing out (pp. 499-500) that while the Pennsylvania State court trials are not bound by Federal court procedural rules, particularly specified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which provides for the filing of a counterclaim in an action based upon a claim arising out of the same occurrence or transaction; and went on to say that the procedural | 1 | 1964–1964 |
London v. Philadelphia
green
1 sentence1964The cause of action was the violation of duty of one, or both, of the drivers involved in the accident, not the damages caused by the collision: Simodejka v. Williams, 360 Pa. 332 , 62 A. 2d 17 (1948).” The Supreme Court, in London, supra, after pointing out (pp. 499-500) that while the Pennsylvania State court trials are not bound by Federal court procedural rules, particularly specified Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(a), which provides for the filing of a counterclaim in an action based upon a claim arising out of the same occurrence or transaction; and went on to say that the procedural | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Price v. New Castle Refractories Co.
green
2 sentences1939The evidence shows that the error of the receiver of taxes was due to his negligence and it has been held in Pennsylvania that, in an action for personal injuries, contributory negligence of an employee, as distinguished from voluntary assumption of risk, is a complete defense to an action based upon the violation of an act requiring the installation of certain safety devices: Price v. New Castle Refractories Co., 332 Pa. 507, 514 , 3 A. 2d 418 . 1939The evidence shows that the error of the receiver of taxes was due to his negligence and it has been held in Pennsylvania that, in an action for personal injuries, contributory negligence of an employee, as distinguished from voluntary assumption of risk, is a complete defense to an action based upon the violation of an act requiring the installation of certain safety devices: Price v. New Castle Refractories Co., 332 Pa. 507, 514 , 3 A. 2d 418 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Smith v. Philadelphia Rubber Works Co.
neutral
1 sentence1938Rubber Works Co., 248 Pa. 494 ; Hoffman v. Brentmore Knitting Mills, 252 Pa. 337 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Hoffman v. Brentmore Knitting Mills
green
1 sentence1938Rubber Works Co., 248 Pa. 494 ; Hoffman v. Brentmore Knitting Mills, 252 Pa. 337 . | 1 | 1938–1938 |
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.