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 3 courts 1988–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Althaus Ex Rel. Althaus v. Cohengreen2 sentences2014To determine whether such duty should be found to exist, the case of Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 553 , 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000) written by our Supreme Court establishes a five part test. 2014To determine whether such duty should be found to exist, the case of Althaus v. Cohen, 562 Pa. 547, 553 , 756 A.2d 1166, 1169 (Pa. 2000) written by our Supreme Court establishes a five part test. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Crawleygreen2 sentences2000Commonwealth v. Crawley, 541 Pa. 408 , 663 A.2d 676, 679-80 (1995). 2000Commonwealth v. Crawley, 541 Pa. 408 , 663 A.2d 676, 679-80 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co.
green
2 sentences2011AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the following issues, as framed by Petitioners: Whether a claimant must meet the five part test articulated by the Supreme Court in the seminal case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287 , 153 A. 424 (1930) to establish “statutory employer” status!?] Whether an owner of property can be a “statutory employer,” under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and existing case law, in the face of 80 years of precedent finding the contrary!?] Allocatur is denied as to the remaining issue. 2011AND NOW, this 14th day of July, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the following issues, as framed by Petitioners: Whether a claimant must meet the five part test articulated by the Supreme Court in the seminal case of McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co., 302 Pa. 287 , 153 A. 424 (1930) to establish “statutory employer” status!?] Whether an owner of property can be a “statutory employer,” under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act and existing case law, in the face of 80 years of precedent finding the contrary!?] Allocatur is denied as to the remaining issue. | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2020Purely Public Charity The School District argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the Institute is a purely public charity because the Institute did not satisfy the five- part test established by our Supreme Court in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 487 A.2d 1306 (Pa. 1985) (HUP). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Bighum
green
2 sentences1989This test was derived from the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decisions in Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33 , 393 A.2d 364 (1978). 1989This test was derived from the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decisions in Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33 , 393 A.2d 364 (1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Roots
green
2 sentences1989This test was derived from the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decisions in Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33 , 393 A.2d 364 (1978). 1989This test was derived from the the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decisions in Commonwealth v. Bighum, 452 Pa. 554 , 307 A.2d 255 (1973) and Commonwealth v. Roots, 482 Pa. 33 , 393 A.2d 364 (1978). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Petrosky v. ZON. BD., UPPER CHICHESTER TP.
green
2 sentences1988This vested rights doctrine is set forth in the controlling case of Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Chichester Township, 485 Pa. 501 , 402 A.2d 1385 (1979), in which the Supreme court described the five part test under which a property owner may acquire vested rights because of an improperly issued permit. 1988This vested rights doctrine is set forth in the controlling case of Petrosky v. Zoning Hearing Board of Upper Chichester Township, 485 Pa. 501 , 402 A.2d 1385 (1979), in which the Supreme court described the five part test under which a property owner may acquire vested rights because of an improperly issued permit. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.