Jacobs claim (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

Jacobs claim in Pennsylvania

8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1912–2020 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Derrygreen
pasuperct · 2016 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020“Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Derry, 150 A.3d 987, 991 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted).

11
Kapcsos, A. v. Benshoff, M.green
pasuperct · 2018 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019All of these are Part 2 arguments concerning the "division of the pie." Kapcsos , at 143 (in Part 2, "if the property were a pie, the trial court must decide how best to serve it to the parties").

11
Hughes v. Fink, Fink and Associatesgreen
pasuperct · 1998 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018See Hughes, 718 A.2d at 320 (indicating that two months of non-docketed discovery was insufficient to establish due diligence after almost four years elapsed without docket activity).

11
Hoffman v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen
pacommwct · 1996 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997At the same time, we recognize that “[w]here a licensee, absent an obvious medical condition, was precluded from making a knowing and conscious refusal of chemical testing allegedly due to that condition, he has the burden of proving by competent medical evidence that his condition prevented such knowing and conscious refusal.” Hoffman v. Department of Transportation, 687 A.2d 395, 398 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
TW Phillips Gas and Oil Co. v. Jedlicka green
pa · 2012
2 sentences

2019Id. at [] 793.

2019Id. at [] 793.

22019–2019
Com. v. Islam neutral
pasuperct · 2009
1 sentence

2015Commonwealth v. Jacobs, 984 A.2d 1015 (Pa. Super. 2009) (unpublished memorandum at 3- 8).

12015–2015
Commonwealth v. Watkins green
pa · 2014
1 sentence

2015According to Jacobs, trial counsel insisted that Jacobs claim that he did not participate at all in the escape attempt. -6- J-S32036-15 Id.

12015–2015
WM. C. Hamilton & Son v. Hart neutral
pa · 1889
2 sentences

1912In Hamilton v. Hart, 125 Pa. 142 , we said, per Mr. Justice Mitchell, “It is well settled that an award which is not final or is not complete as to all the matters included in the submission, is void altogether, and is not admissible even as an account stated;” citing authorities to the effect that “the motive from which the arbitrator resolved to abstain from determining the matters omitted seems to be immaterial,” and that, though the arbitrator might declare he abstained from taking a certain item into consideration “for the reason that a suit in chancery was pending in regard' to that acco

1912In Hamilton v. Hart, 125 Pa. 142 , we said, per Mr. Justice Mitchell, “It is well settled that an award which is not final or is not complete as to all the matters included in the submission, is void altogether, and is not admissible even as an account stated;” citing authorities to the effect that “the motive from which the arbitrator resolved to abstain from determining the matters omitted seems to be immaterial,” and that, though the arbitrator might declare he abstained from taking a certain item into consideration “for the reason that a suit in chancery was pending in regard' to that acco

11912–1912

Where else courts name it

PA 8 (1912–2020) CA 7 (1969–2024) GA 7 (2004–2017) FL 5 (1988–2022) MN 5 (1991–2015) TX 5 (2001–2018) OH 4 (1994–2013) AL 2 (1979–1979) AR 2 (2000–2006) NJ 2 (2000–2019) IN 2 (2009–2015) WI 2 (1994–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check