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 1982–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2001See also, Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 305 Pa. Super. 120, 129 , 451 A.2d 451, 454 (1982) (“[a] court may not make the initial class action determination until after the close of pleadings to ensure that the class proponent is presenting a non-frivolous claim capable of surviving prelimi nary objections”). 2001See also, Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 305 Pa. Super. 120, 129 , 451 A.2d 451, 454 (1982) (“[a] court may not make the initial class action determination until after the close of pleadings to ensure that the class proponent is presenting a non-frivolous claim capable of surviving prelimi nary objections”). | 4 | 4 |
Falkenhan v. Wisegreen2 sentences1987Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, supra; see also Falkenhan v. Wise, 282 Pa.Super. 318 , 422 A.2d 1135 (1980). 1987Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, supra; see also Falkenhan v. Wise, 282 Pa.Super. 318 , 422 A.2d 1135 (1980). | 2 | 2 |
Joseph Williams v. John Clancygreen1 sentence2018With regard to the former, it had been held that "to establish a cognizable access to courts claim, a complainant must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered an 'actual injury' (i.e., that he lost an opportunity to pursue a non frivolous claim); and (2) he has no other remedy, save the present civil rights suit, that can possibly compensate for the lost claim." Williams v. Clancy, 449 Fed.Appx. 87, 89 (3d Cir. 2011) ( citing Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008)). | 1 | 1 |
Christopher v. Harburygreen1 sentence2018Furthermore, "[t]he complaint must describe the underlying arguable claim well enough to show that it is 'more than mere hope,' and it must describe the 'lost remedy."' Monroe, 536 F.3d at 205 -06 (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416-17 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
Monroe v. Beardgreen2 sentences2018With regard to the former, it had been held that "to establish a cognizable access to courts claim, a complainant must demonstrate that: (1) he suffered an 'actual injury' (i.e., that he lost an opportunity to pursue a non frivolous claim); and (2) he has no other remedy, save the present civil rights suit, that can possibly compensate for the lost claim." Williams v. Clancy, 449 Fed.Appx. 87, 89 (3d Cir. 2011) ( citing Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008)). 2018Furthermore, "[t]he complaint must describe the underlying arguable claim well enough to show that it is 'more than mere hope,' and it must describe the 'lost remedy."' Monroe, 536 F.3d at 205 -06 (quoting Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403, 416-17 (2002)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Brady
green
2 sentences2003Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 336 , 508 A.2d 286 (1986)(setting a non-frivolous standard for pre-trial stay related to resolution of double jeopardy claim). 2003Commonwealth v. Brady, 510 Pa. 336 , 508 A.2d 286 (1986)(setting a non-frivolous standard for pre-trial stay related to resolution of double jeopardy claim). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.