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 2 courts 1991–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Bomargreen2 sentences2009Id. at 854-55. 2009Id. at 854-55. | 1 | 2 |
Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Penn Health Systemsgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). 2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Methodist Hospitalgreen2 sentences2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). 2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Goldman v. Goldmangreen2 sentences1991Id., 199 Pa.Superior Ct. at 277-78, 283, 184 A.2d at 352-53, 355 . 1991Id., 199 Pa.Superior Ct. at 277-78, 283, 184 A.2d at 352-53, 355 . | 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 KCW
green
2 sentences2004Applying these principles, we find that the evidentiary restriction set forth in § 2511(b) applies to the entire termination analysis. ¶7 Appellant argues that this Court carved out an exception to § 2511(b)’s restriction clause when we considered a parent’s post-petition activities in In re: K.C.W., 456 Pa.Super. 1 , 689 A.2d 294 (1997). 2004Applying these principles, we find that the evidentiary restriction set forth in § 2511(b) applies to the entire termination analysis. ¶7 Appellant argues that this Court carved out an exception to § 2511(b)’s restriction clause when we considered a parent’s post-petition activities in In re: K.C.W., 456 Pa.Super. 1 , 689 A.2d 294 (1997). | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
2 sentences2019However, in Williams, id. at 624 , this Court carved out an exception to these procedures: this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal even when the appellant is still represented by counsel. 2019In Williams, id., as in the current action, an appellant who was represented by counsel filed a pro se notice of appeal that was docketed in the trial court but not forwarded to this Court. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Friter v. Iolab Corp.
green
2 sentences2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). 2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Southard v. Temple University Hospital
green
2 sentences2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). 2000See, e.g., Watkins v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 268-269 (Pa.Super.1999); Southard, 731 A.2d at 614 ; Kelly v. Methodist Hospital, 444 Pa.Super. 427, 431-435 , 664 A.2d 148, 150-151 (1995). ¶ 15 However, this Court carved out an exception to the general rule in Friter v. Iolab Corp., 414 Pa.Super. 622 , 607 A.2d 1111 (1992). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.