8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2010–2020 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School Districtgreen2 sentences2020“The mere demonstration of a potential procedural error, without also alleging a resulting harm, is not sufficient reason to disturb an agency adjudication.” D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2 A.3d 712, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 2016As we have explained, “the mere demonstration of a potential procedural error, without also alleging a resulting harm, is not sufficient reason to disturb an agency adjudication.” See D.Z. v. Bethlehem Area School District, 2 A.3d 712, 719 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (quoting Seltzer v. Department of Education, 782 A.2d 48, 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001)). | 4 | 5 |
Seltzer v. Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2017This argument fails because, as this Court noted in Seltzer v. Department of Education, 782 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), “the mere demonstration of a potential procedural error, without also alleging a resulting harm, is not sufficient reason to disturb an agency adjudication.” Id. at 53 . 2017This argument fails because, as this Court noted in Seltzer v. Department of Education, 782 A.2d 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001), “the mere demonstration of a potential procedural error, without also alleging a resulting harm, is not sufficient reason to disturb an agency adjudication.” Id. at 53 . | 2 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.