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 1932–2025 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chester Community Charter School v. Commonwealth, Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2017Specifically, Respondents did not, as the Chester II Court prescribed, “acknowledge the receipt of the claim for underpayment from the charter school, [and/or] state that there are no appropriated funds for the year in which the charter school claim can be withheld.” Chester II, 44 A.3d at 722 (emphasis added). 2017Specifically, Respondents did not, as the Chester II Court prescribed, “acknowledge the receipt of the claim for underpayment from the charter school, [and/or] state that there are no appropriated funds for the year in which the charter school claim can be withheld.” Chester II, 44 A.3d at 722 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Morgan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Motor Vehiclesgreen1 sentence2025We note that the record of this matter includes no explanation for the four-and-one-half-year delay between the issuance of the January 2020 Order and the receipt of the hearing transcripts. 8 “Our [] review of a trial court’s order granting or denying a party leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc is limited to determining whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Morgan v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 702 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (citing Kulick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)). 4 If a licensee fa | 1 | 1 |
Keenan v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen1 sentence2024Keenan v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 657 A.2d 134, 136 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Kaur, K. v. Singh, M.green2 sentences2022Appellant thereafter complied. -7- J-A19007-22 An abuse of discretion is not “a mere error in judgment; rather, an abuse of discretion occurs where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 509 (Pa.Super. 2021) In the context of the PFA Act, “[a]ssessing the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is within the exclusive province of the trial court as the fact finder.” S.G. v. R.G., 233 A.3d 903, 907 (Pa 2022Appellant thereafter complied. -7- J-A19007-22 An abuse of discretion is not “a mere error in judgment; rather, an abuse of discretion occurs where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 509 (Pa.Super. 2021) In the context of the PFA Act, “[a]ssessing the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is within the exclusive province of the trial court as the fact finder.” S.G. v. R.G., 233 A.3d 903, 907 (Pa | 1 | 1 |
S.G. v. R.G.green1 sentence2022Appellant thereafter complied. -7- J-A19007-22 An abuse of discretion is not “a mere error in judgment; rather, an abuse of discretion occurs where the judgment is manifestly unreasonable or where the law is not applied or where the record shows that the action is a result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill will.” Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 509 (Pa.Super. 2021) In the context of the PFA Act, “[a]ssessing the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is within the exclusive province of the trial court as the fact finder.” S.G. v. R.G., 233 A.3d 903, 907 (Pa | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ahmed Kamal v. J. Crew Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023The Third Circuit held that “the procedural violation is not itself an injury in fact, and Kamal has not otherwise alleged a risk of harm that satisfies the requirement of concreteness.” Id. at 113 . 2023The Third Circuit held that “the procedural violation is not itself an injury in fact, and Kamal has not otherwise alleged a risk of harm that satisfies the requirement of concreteness.” Id. at 113 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Kulick v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2025We note that the record of this matter includes no explanation for the four-and-one-half-year delay between the issuance of the January 2020 Order and the receipt of the hearing transcripts. 8 “Our [] review of a trial court’s order granting or denying a party leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc is limited to determining whether the court abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Morgan v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 702 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (citing Kulick v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 666 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995)). 4 If a licensee fa | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Nutting v. Lynn
neutral
1 sentence1932Section 8 of the Act of March 12, 1842, P. L. 68, reads: “No medium shall be received in the payment of tolls, taxes or other revenue of the Commonwealth, other than gold and silver, the notes of specie-paying banks or the legal issues.” The Superior Court held in Nutting v. Lynn, 18 Pa. Superior Ct. 59 , that “A tax collector has no right to receive anything in payment of taxes except legal tender money, and the lien of the taxes will not be discharged except by such payment or tender.” The. city treasurer should not have received the check or, taking it, should not have issued a receipt for | 1 | 1932–1932 |
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.