tribunal standard (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

tribunal standard in Pennsylvania

8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2024 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Riverwalk Casino, L.P. v. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Boardgreen
pa · 2007 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2009–2016
2 sentences

2016In applying this standard “an appellate tribunal is not to substitute its judgment for that of the lower tribunal and the standard is not to be applied in such a manner as would intrude upon the agency’s fact-finding role and discretionary decision-making authority.” Id. at 930 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2016In applying this standard “an appellate tribunal is not to substitute its judgment for that of the lower tribunal and the standard is not to be applied in such a manner as would intrude upon the agency's fact- finding role and discretionary decision-making authority.” Id. at 930 (internal quotation marks omitted).

33
Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Boardgreen
pa · 2002 · cited in 3 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Wintermyer, 812 A.2d at 484 . 4 Under this standard, an appellate tribunal is not to substitute its judgment for that of the lower tribunal and the standard “is not to be applied in such a manner as would intrude upon the agency’s fact-finding role and discretionary decision-making authority.” Id. at 487-88.

2007Wintermyer, 812 A.2d at 484 . 4 Under this standard, an appellate tribunal is not to substitute its judgment for that of the lower tribunal and the standard “is not to be applied in such a manner as would intrude upon the agency’s fact-finding role and discretionary decision-making authority.” Id. at 487-88.

33
Rothman v. Rothmangreen
pa · 1967 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1967–1967
2 sentences

1967See Rothman v. Rothman, 425 Pa. 406 , 228 A. 2d 899 (1967); Wenz v. Wenz, 400 Pa. 397 , 162 A. 2d 376 (1960).

1967See Rothman v. Rothman, 425 Pa. 406 , 228 A. 2d 899 (1967); Wenz v. Wenz, 400 Pa. 397 , 162 A. 2d 376 (1960).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Dauphin County Grand Jury Investigation Proceedings green
pa · 1938
1 sentence

2024Shelley, 2 A.2d at 811 -12 (quoting statute) (emphasis added).

12024–2024
Wenz v. Wenz green
pa · 1960
2 sentences

1967See Rothman v. Rothman, 425 Pa. 406 , 228 A. 2d 899 (1967); Wenz v. Wenz, 400 Pa. 397 , 162 A. 2d 376 (1960).

1967See Rothman v. Rothman, 425 Pa. 406 , 228 A. 2d 899 (1967); Wenz v. Wenz, 400 Pa. 397 , 162 A. 2d 376 (1960).

11967–1967

Where else courts name it

MA 18 (1981–2025) GA 14 (1936–2020) MD 10 (1963–2023) CA 8 (1897–2026) PA 8 (1967–2024) FL 8 (2000–2025) NY 5 (1947–2023) TN 4 (1921–2016) NM 4 (1976–2014) AR 4 (1913–2026) OR 4 (1974–1998) IN 4 (1901–1998) TX 3 (1998–2018) MI 3 (1999–2023) MS 3 (1987–1995) OK 3 (1991–1993) KY 2 (1973–2023) WV 2 (1998–2016) AL 2 (1912–1986) IL 2 (1922–1977) NJ 2 (2003–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check