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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2024 3 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 Papers of Jamesgreen1 sentence2024See also In re James, 944 A.2d 69 (Pa. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
In re Nomination Petition of Beyergreen1 sentence2021Specifically,12 Candidate argues that the Pennsylvania 11 “In reviewing an order adjudicating challenges to a nomination petition, our standard of review permits reversal only where the findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence, where there was an abuse of discretion, or where an error of law was committed.” In re Beyer, 115 A.3d 835, 838 (Pa. 2015). 12 Candidate’s brief does not include a formal statement of issues presented. | 1 | 1 |
Stroudsburg Area School District v. Kellygreen1 sentence2008See Stroudsburg Area School District v. Kelly, 701 A.2d 1000 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 553 Pa. 710 , 719 A.2d 748 (1998) (The Rule of Necessity is a common law principle that requires a judge with a personal interest in a case to proceed if the case cannot be heard otherwise. | 1 | 1 |
Cintas Corp. v. Lee's Cleaning Services, Inc.green2 sentences1999Tereshko granting the Candidate's motion to dismiss with prejudice the Objectors' petition to aside the nomination petition. [3] "Without valid service of process, a court lacks personal jurisdiction of a defendant and is powerless to enter judgment against him or her." Cintas Corporation v. Lee's Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84 , 700 A.2d 915, 917-918 (1997). [1] The majority states that "Judge Tereshko found that the receptionist was `not in charge' of the candidate's office; therefore, service was not proper." (Majority op. at 166.) However, the trial court actually found that service w 1999Tereshko granting the Candidate's motion to dismiss with prejudice the Objectors' petition to aside the nomination petition. [3] "Without valid service of process, a court lacks personal jurisdiction of a defendant and is powerless to enter judgment against him or her." Cintas Corporation v. Lee's Cleaning Services, Inc., 549 Pa. 84 , 700 A.2d 915, 917-918 (1997). [1] The majority states that "Judge Tereshko found that the receptionist was `not in charge' of the candidate's office; therefore, service was not proper." (Majority op. at 166.) However, the trial court actually found that service w | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Petition for Enforcement of a Subpoena to Semeraro
green
1 sentence2023Here, Objectors provided argument opposing Candidate’s challenge to the subpoenas and in support of the relevancy of that testimony, common pleas “rule[d] definitively on the record . . . at trial,” id., stating “[t]hat is the definitive ruling on that,” quashing the subpoenas, and stating it would not hear any other witnesses’ testimony at the hearing. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Myers v. Newtown Township School District
green
2 sentences2007Myers v. Newtown Township School District, 396 Pa. 542 , 153 A.2d 494 (1959) is the leading case. 2007Myers v. Newtown Township School District, 396 Pa. 542 , 153 A.2d 494 (1959) is the leading case. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Williams
green
1 sentence1995The court ruled that, under In re Williams, 155 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 494, 625 A.2d 1279 (1993), because Objector is a Democrat, she has no standing to challenge Candidate’s Republican nomination petition. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.