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 2001–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Center, Inc.green1 sentence2026While it is well-established that it is the appellant’s responsibility to ensure that the certified record on appeal is complete for our review, see Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Center, Inc., 585 A.2d 1012, 1019 (Pa. Super. 1991), it is also the clerk of court’s duty to maintain a complete record for purposes of appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Vaca v. Sipesgreen1 sentence2020(Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 575a-85a.) The Hearing 5 The duty of fair representation requires unions to “serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jal v. Eph
green
2 sentences2001On March 17, 1997, a hearing officer held a hearing on both standing and custody/visitation. 3 Relying on J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa.Super. 78 , 682 A.2d 1314 (1996), the hearing officer concluded that Appellee had standing to seek custody/visitation pursuant to the doctrine of in loco parentis. 2001On March 17, 1997, a hearing officer held a hearing on both standing and custody/visitation. 3 Relying on J.A.L. v. E.P.H., 453 Pa.Super. 78 , 682 A.2d 1314 (1996), the hearing officer concluded that Appellee had standing to seek custody/visitation pursuant to the doctrine of in loco parentis. | 4 | 2001–2001 |
Caffas v. Board of School Directors
green
2 sentences2010The Commission, adopting the Hearing Officer’s analysis, reasoned that M.T.’s conduct was cruel because it “was certain to cause psychological injury and was without just cause or excuse.” (Recommendation at 43.) In Caffas v. Board of School Directors, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 578 , 353 A.2d 898 (1976), a teacher appealed an order from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, sustaining a school board’s decision to terminate a teacher’s contract due to, inter alia, “cruelty.” At that time, there was no regulation defining “cruelty.” This Court, thus, resorted to a dictionary definition of the term, part 2010The Commission, adopting the Hearing Officer’s analysis, reasoned that M.T.’s conduct was cruel because it “was certain to cause psychological injury and was without just cause or excuse.” (Recommendation at 43.) In Caffas v. Board of School Directors, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 578 , 353 A.2d 898 (1976), a teacher appealed an order from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education, sustaining a school board’s decision to terminate a teacher’s contract due to, inter alia, “cruelty.” At that time, there was no regulation defining “cruelty.” This Court, thus, resorted to a dictionary definition of the term, part | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Lawson v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare
green
1 sentence2005As we stated in Mill-creek, “ ‘De novo’ review entails, as the term suggests, full consideration of the case anew as if it was not heard before and no decision had been previously rendered.” Id., 796 A.2d at 1029 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Manor v. Department of Public Welfare
green
1 sentence2005As we stated in Mill-creek, “ ‘De novo’ review entails, as the term suggests, full consideration of the case anew as if it was not heard before and no decision had been previously rendered.” Id., 796 A.2d at 1029 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.