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 1999–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Demorared2 sentences2018See Martinez, 147 A.3d at 532 . ____________________________________________ 16To the extent Appellants also challenge the application of Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. McCullough, 174 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc), explicitly recognized Muniz overruled Demora. 2018To the extent Appellants also challenge the application of Commonwealth v. Demora , 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. McCullough , 174 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2017) ( en banc ), explicitly recognized Muniz overruled Demora . | 1 | 2 |
Reichert v. TRW, Inc., Cutting Tools Div.green2 sentences2023See Reichert v. TRW, Inc., Cutting Tools Div., 531 Pa. 193 , 611 A.2d 1191 (1992) (explaining that filing of amended complaint is essentially withdrawal of original complaint). 2023See Reichert v. TRW, Inc., Cutting Tools Div., 531 Pa. 193 , 611 A.2d 1191 (1992) (explaining that filing of amended complaint is essentially withdrawal of original complaint). | 1 | 1 |
Werner v. Zazycznygreen1 sentence2022See Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331, 1338 (Pa. 1996) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that he should have been granted leave to amend his pleadings where he never requested that the court allow him leave to amend and no case law “requir[es] a court to sua sponte order or require a party to amend his pleading”); d’Happart v. First Commonwealth Bank, -- A.3d --, 2022 PA Super 132, *26-27 (filed Aug. 5, 2022) (same).8 ____________________________________________ 8 We also note that — although Appellants claim they have substantial facts to support causation that are not in the record, see Appel | 1 | 1 |
D'Happart, S. v. First Commonwealth Bankgreen1 sentence2022See Werner v. Zazyczny, 681 A.2d 1331, 1338 (Pa. 1996) (rejecting the appellant’s claim that he should have been granted leave to amend his pleadings where he never requested that the court allow him leave to amend and no case law “requir[es] a court to sua sponte order or require a party to amend his pleading”); d’Happart v. First Commonwealth Bank, -- A.3d --, 2022 PA Super 132, *26-27 (filed Aug. 5, 2022) (same).8 ____________________________________________ 8 We also note that — although Appellants claim they have substantial facts to support causation that are not in the record, see Appel | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2021See Rodriguez, 141 A.3d at 525 (recognizing that we cannot and will not re-weigh the evidence and substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder). | 1 | 1 |
Lomas, R. v. Kravitz, J., Petsgreen1 sentence2018See Martinez, 147 A.3d at 532 . ____________________________________________ 16To the extent Appellants also challenge the application of Commonwealth v. Demora, 149 A.3d 330 (Pa. Super. 2016), this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. McCullough, 174 A.3d 1094 (Pa. Super. 2017) (en banc), explicitly recognized Muniz overruled Demora. | 1 | 1 |
Majorsky v. Douglasgreen1 sentence2016See Majorsky v. Douglas, 58 A.3d 1250 (Pa.Super. 2012), appeal denied, 620 Pa. 732 , 70 A.3d 811 (2013) (reiterating general rule that issues not raised before trial court are waived and cannot be raised for first time on appeal, citing Pa.R.A.P. 302; likewise, issues absent from court-ordered Rule 1925(b) statement are waived for purposes of appellate review). -5- J-A03045-16 AND THORACIC DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE; B) IT WOULD REQUIRE AT LEAST 3-6 MONTHS TO RECOVER FROM THE LUMBAR SPRAIN AND STRAIN AND THERE IS A 25-30% CHANCE THAT THE INJURY MIGHT BE PERMANENT; C) [MRS. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Fox v. Gabler
green
1 sentence2023To the extent Appellants claim the variance is due to the court’s application of a 6% interest rate as opposed to the 10% interest rate suggested by Mr. Valentine, we note that the $375,865.00 figure was a pre-interest figure. - 28 - J-A10038-22 are “effectively abandoned.” Fox v. Gabler, 534 Pa. 185 , 626 A.2d 1143 (1993) (holding that once default judgment was entered against appellee for disobedience to discovery orders, appellee effectively abandoned claim that contract at issue was illegal). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pennsylvania Financial Responsibility Assigned Claims Plan v. English
green
1 sentence1999In light of the purposes to be served by the Assigned Claims Plan, we think not." Id. [11] To the extent Appellants claim that a motor vehicle must be registered and operated in Pennsylvania at the time of the accident in order for an insured to be entitled to first party benefits under Section 1711 of the MVFRL, we agree. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.