8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania State Police v. Grogangreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., In re Scroggin, 237 A.3d at 1021 (stating that our Supreme Court “repeatedly has cautioned[ that] even erroneous guidance 23 from the Department [of State] or county boards of elections cannot nullify the express provisions of the Election Code”); In re Guzzardi, 99 A.3d at 388 (explaining that “even if there was some miscommunication at the Department of State . . . , this does not offset the underlying, self-acknowledged mistake” of the candidate “in failing to apprehend, from the outset, the express statutory requirement to file a statement of financial interests with the Ethics 2020See Guzzardi, 99 A.3d at 388 (“[E]ven if there was some miscommunication at the Department of State . . ., this does not offset the underlying, self-acknowledged mistake” of the candidate “in failing to apprehend, from the outset, the express statutory requirement to file a statement of financial interests with the Election Commission.”); Appeal of Pierce, 843 A.2d at 1225 (holding that the delivery of absentee ballots by third persons rendered them invalid, notwithstanding indications from the Allegheny County Board of Elections that the practice was permitted). | 2 | 2 |
In re Nomination Petition of Guzzardigreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., In re Scroggin, 237 A.3d at 1021 (stating that our Supreme Court “repeatedly has cautioned[ that] even erroneous guidance 23 from the Department [of State] or county boards of elections cannot nullify the express provisions of the Election Code”); In re Guzzardi, 99 A.3d at 388 (explaining that “even if there was some miscommunication at the Department of State . . . , this does not offset the underlying, self-acknowledged mistake” of the candidate “in failing to apprehend, from the outset, the express statutory requirement to file a statement of financial interests with the Ethics 2020See Guzzardi, 99 A.3d at 388 (“[E]ven if there was some miscommunication at the Department of State . . ., this does not offset the underlying, self-acknowledged mistake” of the candidate “in failing to apprehend, from the outset, the express statutory requirement to file a statement of financial interests with the Election Commission.”); Appeal of Pierce, 843 A.2d at 1225 (holding that the delivery of absentee ballots by third persons rendered them invalid, notwithstanding indications from the Allegheny County Board of Elections that the practice was permitted). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
H. J. Heinz Co. v. School District
neutral
2 sentences1954Heinz Company v. School District of Pittsburgh, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 441 , 87 A. 2d 85 , is in direct conflict with the express statutory requirement that penalties and interest be imposed when for any reason the mercantile tax is not paid when due. 1954Heinz Company v. School District of Pittsburgh, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 441 , 87 A. 2d 85 , is in direct conflict with the express statutory requirement that penalties and interest be imposed when for any reason the mercantile tax is not paid when due. | 2 | 1954–1954 |
Primiano v. City of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2011Section 1922 of the Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922, “prohibits courts from interpreting statutes in a way that makes words used in statutes meaningless or mere surplusage.” Primiano v. City of Philadelphia, 739 A.2d 1172 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Leedom v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2004See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522; Leedom, 699 A.2d at 817-18 . 2004See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5522; Leedom, 699 A.2d at 817-18 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Montoya v. Gateway Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2000To begin with, as we explained in Montoya [v. Gateway Insurance Company, 168 N.J.Super. 100, 104 , 401 A.2d 1102 (App.Div.1979) ] “a well established body of law holds that illegal aliens have rights to access to the courts and are eligible to sue therein to enforce contracts and redress civil wrongs such as negligently inflicted personal injuries.” We fully subscribe to that proposition. 2000To begin with, as we explained in Montoya [v. Gateway Insurance Company, 168 N.J.Super. 100, 104 , 401 A.2d 1102 (App.Div.1979) ] “a well established body of law holds that illegal aliens have rights to access to the courts and are eligible to sue therein to enforce contracts and redress civil wrongs such as negligently inflicted personal injuries.” We fully subscribe to that proposition. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. v. Consolidated Pipe Co. of America, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980However, this Comment in no way evidences an intention to contradict the express statutory requirement that the writings indicate that a contract for sale “has been made.” 8 Indeed, our opinion in Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. v. Consolidated Pipe Co., supra, 396 Pa. at 511 , 153 A.2d at 475 , recognized that one writing in that case referred to one purchase contract or order in question as an “accomplished fact, not as an offer depending upon acceptance for its validity.” Moreover, another writing indicated that Consolidated Pipe Company “agreed” to ship its entire production of the material contr 1980However, this Comment in no way evidences an intention to contradict the express statutory requirement that the writings indicate that a contract for sale “has been made.” 8 Indeed, our opinion in Harry Rubin & Sons, Inc. v. Consolidated Pipe Co., supra, 396 Pa. at 511 , 153 A.2d at 475 , recognized that one writing in that case referred to one purchase contract or order in question as an “accomplished fact, not as an offer depending upon acceptance for its validity.” Moreover, another writing indicated that Consolidated Pipe Company “agreed” to ship its entire production of the material contr | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.