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 1972–2026 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Nomination Petitions & Papers of Stevensongreen2 sentences2026Code §§ 12-2805 (notice of parking violation), 12-2806 (answer to the parking violation, including a denial and request of an in-person or online hearing), 12-2807 (providing for an adjudication by a parking hearing examiner), 12-2808 (providing for appeal to the BAA within 30 days of the parking hearing examiner’s decision); 8 Lower federal court decisions “have only persuasive, not binding, effect on the courts of this Commonwealth—although we certainly are bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on questions of federal law.” In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212, 1221 (Pa. 2012). 15 Sectio 2026Code §§ 12-2805 (notice of parking violation), 12-2806 (answer to the parking violation, including a denial and request of an in-person or online hearing), 12-2807 (providing for an adjudication by a parking hearing examiner), 12-2808 (providing for appeal to the BAA within 30 days of the parking hearing examiner’s decision); 8 Lower federal court decisions “have only persuasive, not binding, effect on the courts of this Commonwealth—although we certainly are bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on questions of federal law.” In re Stevenson, 40 A.3d 1212, 1221 (Pa. 2012). 15 Sectio | 1 | 1 |
O'NEILL v. City of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2025Accord O’Neill v. City of Phila., 711 A.2d 544, 549 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (observing, regarding the legal expense of challenging a parking violation, that “the expense and inconvenience of pursuing the administrative remedy does not render the remedy inadequate”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stevensongreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. Stevenson, 832 A.2d 1123 , 1130- 32 (Pa.Super. 2003) (examining each ground for stopping separately where officer stopped vehicle on three unrelated grounds—suspected driving without a license, illegal drug activity, and a parking violation). | 1 | 1 |
City of Kansas City v. Hertz Corporationgreen1 sentence1989City of Kansas City v. Hertz Corp., 499 S.W.2d 449, 453 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Mumma v. Hinklegreen1 sentence1972Nelly, speaking for the Common Pleas Court of Dauphin County in the case of Mumma v. Hinkle, 71 Dauph. 241, 244, 20 Pa. D. & C. 2d 621, 625 (1958), “While the option to purchase real estate is not a sale, the optionee nevertheless does acquire the right to call for a conveyance of the land, and it has been held that this right to purchase constitutes a substantial interest in the land.” Its license, the name given to the parking privilege in the Fry Option Agreement, is ordinarily considered to be a mere personal or revocable privilege to perform an act or series of acts on the land of another | 1 | 1 |
Albert J. Grosser Co. v. Rosengreen2 sentences1972Grosser Co. v. Rosen, 436 Pa. 311, 317 , 259 A. 2d 679, 681 (1969): ‘By taldng the benefits of the lease and collecting the rents, Rosen [the mortgagee in possession] has adopted the lease and must likewise take its burdens.’ ” Had Bally exercised its right to purchase the property, no question would have arisen as to Roger’s right to enjoy the parking privilege of its leases. 1972Grosser Co. v. Rosen, 436 Pa. 311, 317 , 259 A. 2d 679, 681 (1969): ‘By taldng the benefits of the lease and collecting the rents, Rosen [the mortgagee in possession] has adopted the lease and must likewise take its burdens.’ ” Had Bally exercised its right to purchase the property, no question would have arisen as to Roger’s right to enjoy the parking privilege of its leases. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Halberstadt v. Borough of Nazareth
green
2 sentences2003Hertzberg; Halberstadt v. Borough of Nazareth, 546 Pa. 578 , 687 A.2d 371 (1997); Vitti; Wagner. 2003Hertzberg; Halberstadt v. Borough of Nazareth, 546 Pa. 578 , 687 A.2d 371 (1997); Vitti; Wagner. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Commonwealth v. DeWitt
green
2 sentences2003Id. at 304-06 , 608 A.2d at 1033 . 2003Id. at 304-06 , 608 A.2d at 1033 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Sunnyside Up Corp. v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board
green
1 sentence2002Sunnyside Up Corporation v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board, 739 A.2d 644 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 636 , 758 A.2d 666 (2000); Gustin v. Zoning Board of Sayre Borough, 55 Pa.Cmwlth. 410 , 423 A.2d 1085 (1980). .Appellants contend that the Ordinance does not require service bays as part of a gasoline service station use; rather, Appellants maintain that a reasonable reading of the parking requirement is that if a gasoline service station has any bays at all, it must have at least five parking spaces for each of those bays. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Gustin v. Zoning Hearing Board
green
2 sentences2002Sunnyside Up Corporation v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board, 739 A.2d 644 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 636 , 758 A.2d 666 (2000); Gustin v. Zoning Board of Sayre Borough, 55 Pa.Cmwlth. 410 , 423 A.2d 1085 (1980). .Appellants contend that the Ordinance does not require service bays as part of a gasoline service station use; rather, Appellants maintain that a reasonable reading of the parking requirement is that if a gasoline service station has any bays at all, it must have at least five parking spaces for each of those bays. 2002Sunnyside Up Corporation v. City of Lancaster Zoning Hearing Board, 739 A.2d 644 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), appeal denied, 563 Pa. 636 , 758 A.2d 666 (2000); Gustin v. Zoning Board of Sayre Borough, 55 Pa.Cmwlth. 410 , 423 A.2d 1085 (1980). .Appellants contend that the Ordinance does not require service bays as part of a gasoline service station use; rather, Appellants maintain that a reasonable reading of the parking requirement is that if a gasoline service station has any bays at all, it must have at least five parking spaces for each of those bays. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.