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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Saber, I. v. Navy Federal Credit Uniongreen1 sentence2026See Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 350 A.3d 965 , 970 (Pa. Super. 2026) (determining that claims that lack, inter alia, citation to relevant authority, are waived). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Byersgreen2 sentences2015The genesis of the elements of “motor running, location of the vehicle and additional evidence that the defendant had driven the vehicle” appears to be Commonwealth v. Byers, ____________________________________________ 5 Because the relevant terms, ‘drive’, ‘operate’, ‘actual physical control’, are not defined by statute, this instruction does not contradict the statute. -6- J-A31030-14 650 A.2d 468 (Pa. Super. 1994) which noted that “in a majority of cases, the suspect location of the vehicle, which supports an inference that it was driven, is a key factor in finding actual control.” Id. at 2015The genesis of the elements of “motor running, location of the vehicle and additional evidence that the defendant had driven the vehicle” appears to be Commonwealth v. Byers, ____________________________________________ 5 Because the relevant terms, ‘drive’, ‘operate’, ‘actual physical control’, are not defined by statute, this instruction does not contradict the statute. -6- J-A31030-14 650 A.2d 468 (Pa. Super. 1994) which noted that “in a majority of cases, the suspect location of the vehicle, which supports an inference that it was driven, is a key factor in finding actual control.” Id. at | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kirklandgreen1 sentence2005See Kirkland, supra; Bullick, supra; Torres, supra. ¶ 39 Finally, regarding Appellant’s conviction for conspiracy, the evidence established a close relationship between Appellant and his passengers; Appellant and Nieves both indicated Nieves was Appellant’s girlfriend and Appellant and Walker both said they were cousins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thelusson v. Smith
green
2 sentences1981Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396, 426 , 4 L.Ed. 271 (1817), held that a lien was sufficiently specific and perfected to be excepted from the operation of the Federal Insolvency Statute if the debtor mortgaged the property to secure the debt, or otherwise divested himself of title to or possession of the property before the insolvency. 1981Thelusson v. Smith, 2 Wheat. 396, 426 , 4 L.Ed. 271 (1817), held that a lien was sufficiently specific and perfected to be excepted from the operation of the Federal Insolvency Statute if the debtor mortgaged the property to secure the debt, or otherwise divested himself of title to or possession of the property before the insolvency. | 2 | 1981–1981 |
Mooney v. Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education Board of Trustees
green
1 sentence2021In Mooney v. Board of Trustees of Temple University of Commonwealth System of Higher Education, 292 A.2d 395 (Pa. 1972), our Supreme Court considered whether Temple University (Temple) was a “state agency” for purposes of a statute mandating such agencies’ disclosure of public records. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Adams, E., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2020The Supreme Court may have made a finding in a similar case [i.e., Commonwealth v. Adams, 205 A.3d 1195 (Pa. 2019), cert. pending (U.S. 2019),] that runs counter to what I am going to find, but, of course, all of these cases are fact specific. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Springfield Township v. Halderman
green
1 sentence2016In reaching its holding, this Court, characterizing the municipality's merger provision, stated, "[t]his provision, in essence, codifies the case law doctrine of merger." Id. at 530 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Davis
green
1 sentence2015However, more similar to the current controversy is Commonwealth v. Davis, 313 Pa. Super. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Swartz
green
1 sentence2015Id. -5- J-S65003-15 On appeal, the appellant in Swartz raised a sufficiency claim regarding his conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv), which required this Court to determine “whether the appellant’s intent was adequately demonstrated when there was no actual threat or display of force but only a demand for money.” In making this determination, we conducted the following case law analysis: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa. Superior Ct. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979)[,] this court held that an actor’s request to open a drawer, which was repeated in the following manner: “Bitch, open | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Hurd
green
2 sentences2015Id. -5- J-S65003-15 On appeal, the appellant in Swartz raised a sufficiency claim regarding his conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv), which required this Court to determine “whether the appellant’s intent was adequately demonstrated when there was no actual threat or display of force but only a demand for money.” In making this determination, we conducted the following case law analysis: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa. Superior Ct. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979)[,] this court held that an actor’s request to open a drawer, which was repeated in the following manner: “Bitch, open 2015Id. -5- J-S65003-15 On appeal, the appellant in Swartz raised a sufficiency claim regarding his conviction of robbery under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3701(a)(1)(iv), which required this Court to determine “whether the appellant’s intent was adequately demonstrated when there was no actual threat or display of force but only a demand for money.” In making this determination, we conducted the following case law analysis: In Commonwealth v. Hurd, 268 Pa. Superior Ct. 24 , 407 A.2d 418 (1979)[,] this court held that an actor’s request to open a drawer, which was repeated in the following manner: “Bitch, open | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.