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 3 courts 1937–2021 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Nollgreen2 sentences2021While the attorney-client privilege extends to an agent of an attorney who assists in the provision of legal advice to the client, see Commonwealth v. Noll, 662 A.2d 1123, 1126 (Pa. Super. 1995), Ms. Amodei’s presence during the discussions to support and advise Appellant did not morph Ms. Amodei into an agent of defense counsel. 2021While the attorney-client privilege extends to an agent of an attorney who assists in the provision of legal advice to the client, see Commonwealth v. Noll, 662 A.2d 1123, 1126 (Pa. Super. 1995), Ms. Amodei’s presence during the discussions to support and advise Appellant did not morph Ms. Amodei into an agent of defense counsel. | 3 | 3 |
Matkevich v. Robertsongreen2 sentences1982Compare Matkevich v. Robertson, 403 Pa. 200 , 169 A.2d 91 (1961), with East Broad Top Transit Co. v. Flood, 326 Pa. 353 , 192 A. 401 (1937). 1982Compare Matkevich v. Robertson, 403 Pa. 200 , 169 A.2d 91 (1961), with East Broad Top Transit Co. v. Flood, 326 Pa. 353 , 192 A. 401 (1937). | 2 | 2 |
East Broad Top Transit Co. v. Floodgreen2 sentences1982Compare Matkevich v. Robertson, 403 Pa. 200 , 169 A.2d 91 (1961), with East Broad Top Transit Co. v. Flood, 326 Pa. 353 , 192 A. 401 (1937). 1982Compare Matkevich v. Robertson, 403 Pa. 200 , 169 A.2d 91 (1961), with East Broad Top Transit Co. v. Flood, 326 Pa. 353 , 192 A. 401 (1937). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Spiezergreen2 sentences2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court’s conclusion that “the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses’ experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants’ attorneys, or the opinions and conclu sions they developed at the behest of defendants’ attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship”); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 65 2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court’s conclusion that “the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses’ experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants’ attorneys, or the opinions and conclu sions they developed at the behest of defendants’ attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship”); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 65 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dunngreen2 sentences2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court’s conclusion that “the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses’ experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants’ attorneys, or the opinions and conclu sions they developed at the behest of defendants’ attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship”); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 65 2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court’s conclusion that “the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses’ experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants’ attorneys, or the opinions and conclu sions they developed at the behest of defendants’ attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship”); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 65 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Walkergreen2 sentences2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court’s conclusion that “the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses’ experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants’ attorneys, or the opinions and conclu sions they developed at the behest of defendants’ attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship”); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 65 2005See id. at 864-67 (holding that a practical application of the work-product doctrine supported the court's conclusion that "the government should be precluded from eliciting testimony from the defenses' experts concerning the efforts they undertook at the request of defendants' attorneys, or the opinions and conclusions they developed at the behest of defendants' attorneys, unless the government first makes a showing of substantial need of that testimony and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent of that testimony without undue hardship"); State v. Dunn, 154 N.C.App. 1 , 571 S.E.2d 650 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mamalis v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009A claim of vicarious liability against a principal is indivisible and inseparable from the claim against the agent because the claim is based on one indivisible act of wrongdoing for which both the principal and agent are liable. 2 Mamalis, 560 A.2d at 1383 ; see also Milton S. Hershey Med. 1992The defendants Bancroft cite Mamalis v. Atlas Van Lines, 522 Pa. 214 , 560 A.2d 1380 (1989), for the proposition that the release of an agent on a claim also releases the principal. | 2 | 1992–2009 |
Pennsylvania Co. v. Bergson
green
2 sentences1937Even an unregistered owner is held liable for taxes to the taxing authority and to a mortgagee who has paid them: Pennsylvania Company, Etc., Trustee, v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44 , 159 A. 32 ; North Phila. 1937Even an unregistered owner is held liable for taxes to the taxing authority and to a mortgagee who has paid them: Pennsylvania Company, Etc., Trustee, v. Bergson, 307 Pa. 44 , 159 A. 32 ; North Phila. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
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.