8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Ciaffonigreen2 sentences2017In re Ciaffoni, 787 A.2d 971, 973 (Pa. Super. 2001). 2017In re Ciaffoni, 787 A.2d 971, 973 (Pa. Super. 2001) (citations omitted). | 3 | 3 |
In Re: Estate of: Marsh, M.M.green1 sentence2019In re Marsh, 175 A.3d 993, 996 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bensongreen1 sentence2001See id. ¶ 6 In support of his sole issue, Disclaimant contends that none of the intended beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate would be prejudiced if he were allowed to revoke his Disclaimer and take his original share under the will. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
M.E.V. v. F.P.W.
green
1 sentence2015Whether the trial court committed an abuse of discretion in awarding primary physical custody to Mother[,] when the court engaged in no analysis [concerning] the effect of such an [award] on [] [C]hild as the circumstances existed at the time of trial, [which] uprooted [] [C]hild from school friends and his current life[,] and whether such an [award] was in [] [C]hild’s best interest under the factors enumerated in 23 Pa.C.S. [§] 5328[,] and when Mother presented no current evidence to the [trial c]ourt as to her current ability to parent [] [C]hild as required under M.E.V. v. F.P.W., 100 A.3d | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Com. v. JH
green
2 sentences2009We concluded "as the Act does not require notification of the State Police until after an expungement order has been entered, standing does not derive from the statute." Id. at 251, 759 A.2d at 1270 . 2009We concluded “as the Act does not require notification of the State Police until after an expungement order has been entered, standing does not derive from the statute.” Id. at 251, 759 A.2d at 1270 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Hutchison v. Luddy
green
2 sentences1997Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa.Super. 138 , 606 A.2d 905 (1992) is more clearly contrary to the position adopted here. 1997Hutchison v. Luddy, 414 Pa.Super. 138 , 606 A.2d 905 (1992) is more clearly contrary to the position adopted here. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.