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.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Womer v. Hillikergreen2 sentences2017In reaching this decision, the High Court discussed the purpose of the certificate-of-merit requirement, observing that certificates of merit “identify and weed non-meritorious malpractice claims from the judicial system efficiently and promptly.” Id. at 275 . 2014The court, employing a policy-based analysis, determined that accepting the Brunos’ contention would be “antithetical to the purpose behind the certificate of merit requirement” articulated by our Court, which was to “ ‘devise an orderly procedure that would serve to identify and weed non-meritorious malpractice claims from the judicial system efficiently and promptly.’ ” Id. at 23-25 (quoting Worrier v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256 , 908 A.2d 269, 275-76 (2006)). | 4 | 5 |
Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authoritygreen1 sentence2026For -2- ____________________________________________ example, Attorney Welsh “quotes” Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Auth., 980 A.2d 502, 507-508 (Pa. 2009) for the proposition that the certificate of merit requirement was “intended as ‘a shield against frivolous claims of professional liability’ but ‘never as a sword to strike down potentially meritorious claims sounding in ordinary negligence.’” Appellants’ Brief at 26. | 1 | 1 |
McNeil v. Jordangreen2 sentences2009Nos. 1007(1), 1042.3 (permitting a plaintiff to file an action by writ of summons, and tying the certificate of merit requirement in professional liability actions to the filing of a complaint); McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 443-45 , 894 A.2d 1260, 1278-79 (2006) (discussing the availability of pre-complaint discovery); Pa.R.C.P. 2009Nos. 1007(1), 1042.3 (permitting a plaintiff to file an action by writ of summons, and tying the certificate of merit requirement in professional liability actions to the filing of a complaint); McNeil v. Jordan, 586 Pa. 413, 443-45 , 894 A.2d 1260, 1278-79 (2006) (discussing the availability of pre-complaint discovery); Pa.R.C.P. | 1 | 1 |
Herrmann v. Pristine Pines of Franklin Park Inc.green1 sentence2007See id. at 20 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Robert Sugarman
green
1 sentence2019The purpose of the Rule, as noted by one appellate court, is “to ensure that professional negligence claims are meritorious . . . the certificate-of-merit requirement prevents needless waste of judicial time and resources, which would otherwise be spent on non-meritorious claims.” Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258 , 262-63 (3d Cir. 2011).1 In other words, a plaintiff must verify at the outset of the case that an expert supports his theory of professional negligence. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center
green
2 sentences2014In his dissenting opinion in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, 5 A.3d 212 (Pa. 2010), Justice Saylor commented on the relationship of the Supreme Court to the legislature and the certificate of merit requirement. 5 A.3d at 225-228 . 2014In his dissenting opinion in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, 5 A.3d 212 (Pa. 2010), Justice Saylor commented on the relationship of the Supreme Court to the legislature and the certificate of merit requirement. 5 A.3d at 225-228 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Bilt-Rite Contractors, Inc. v. Architectural Studio
green
1 sentence2014The court noted that our Court in Bilt-Rite, supra, recognized that engineers may be found professionally liable to third parties when it is foreseeable that the information the [J-23-2014] - 9 engineers provide to a client will be used and relied on by the third party. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Womer v. Hilliker
neutral
1 sentence2005Pa.R.C.P. 3051. .We note that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur in Womer v. Hilliker, 860 A.2d 1144 (Pa.Super.2004) (unpublished memorandum), appeal granted, -Pa. -, 869 A.2d 482 (2005), limited to the question of: whether the Superior Court erred in finding that petitioner alleged sufficient facts to warrant opening the judgment of non pros, where respondent failed to comply with the certificate of merit requirement set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.