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 1980–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Resto, A.green2 sentences2020Although this section does not apply to the instant case, we note that conspicuously absent from Section 9718(c.1) is the requirement that the Commonwealth provide notice prior to trial, as - 22 - J-S28019-20 § 9718(c) (effective August 18, 2014 to December 17, 2019); see also Resto, 179 A.3d at 22 (holding that the notification requirement of Section 9718(c), as it relates to Section 9718(a)(3), is constitutional). 2020Although this section does not apply to the instant case, we note that conspicuously absent from Section 9718(c.1) is the requirement that the Commonwealth provide notice prior to trial, as - 22 - J-S28019-20 § 9718(c) (effective August 18, 2014 to December 17, 2019); see also Resto, 179 A.3d at 22 (holding that the notification requirement of Section 9718(c), as it relates to Section 9718(a)(3), is constitutional). | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of D.S.green1 sentence2023See D.S., 39 A.3d at 975 . | 1 | 1 |
Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co.green1 sentence2018UPMC's Brief at 21-24 (relying upon Excavation Technologies , 985 A.2d at 842 (finding "it apparent our legislature did not intend utility companies to be liable for economic harm caused by an inaccurate response under the [One Call] Act, [ see infra at page 1053 n.20,] because it did not provide a private cause of action for economic losses") ). | 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. Mayfield
green
1 sentence2015As the court succinctly stated, “Notice to a defendant charged under Section 6105 is not an element the Commonwealth must prove.” Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Foster
green
2 sentences2006Foster, 585 Pa. at 536 , 889 A.2d at 81 . 2006Foster, 585 Pa. at 536 , 889 A.2d at 81 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. Hassine
green
2 sentences1987Commonwealth v. Hassine, 340 Pa.Super. 318 , 490 A.2d 438 (1985). . 1987Commonwealth v. Hassine, 340 Pa.Super. 318 , 490 A.2d 438 (1985). . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Frumento v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REV.
green
2 sentences1980Claimant further relies on Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81 , 351 A.2d 631 (1976), to argue that SEPTA’s notice rule was “unreasonable.” Frumento stated that it may be necessary to look beyond the breach of the employer’s rule in order to examine the employee’s conduct in light of all relevant circumstances. 1980Claimant further relies on Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81 , 351 A.2d 631 (1976), to argue that SEPTA’s notice rule was “unreasonable.” Frumento stated that it may be necessary to look beyond the breach of the employer’s rule in order to examine the employee’s conduct in light of all relevant circumstances. | 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.