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 2010–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Penn Ctr. for Rehab. & Caregreen2 sentences2024“We review the trial court’s enforcement of a local procedural rule for an abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation and Care, 147 A.3d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2016). 2017“We review the trial court’s enforcement of a local procedural rule for an abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation and Care, 147 A.3d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 2017 WL 1015635 (Pa. filed Mar. 17, 2017) (citation omitted). “[I]f the matter under review involves the interpretation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, we have before us a question of law, where our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Midwest Fin. | 2 | 2 |
Gutman v. Rissingergreen2 sentences2016Gutman v. Rissinger, 334 Pa.Super. 259 , 482 A.2d 1324 , 1324 (1984). 2016Gutman v. Rissinger, 334 Pa.Super. 259 , 482 A.2d 1324 , 1324 (1984). | 1 | 2 |
In Re a Conservatorship Proceeding Ex Rel. Germantown Conservancy, Inc.green2 sentences2017Gallagher and Stevenson also contend that Rule 239(f) of the Civil Rules is inapplicable because it is meant “‘to address the injustice of terminating a lawsuit where the breach of a local procedural rule affected the substantive rights of a party.’” (Gallagher’s Br. at 10 (quoting In re Conservatorship Proceeding In Rem by Germantown Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d 451, 460 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Germantown Conservancy, Inc.).) Thus, where a local rule does not require automatic dismissal of the complaint, and Local Rule No. 200(2) does not, it does not violate Rule 239(f) of the Civil Rules. 2017Common pleas did not preclude S.P.S. from pursuing the Third Amended Complaint to Join, it merely required it to obtain representation from a licensed attorney in order to do so.11 “A local rule will be invalidated if it abridges, enlarges, or modifies substantive rights of litigants.” Germantown Conservancy, Inc., 995 A.2d at 461 . 11 Keddie offers no argument in support of the dismissal of the Third Amended Complaint to Join based on Local Rule No. 200(2), but argues that Additional Defendants are entitled to the dismissal thereof for a variety of alternative grounds that are supported in th | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mendezgreen1 sentence2017Acceptance Corp. v. Lopez, 78 A.3d 614, 624 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albright v. the Wella Corp.
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation & Care
neutral
1 sentence2017“We review the trial court’s enforcement of a local procedural rule for an abuse of discretion.” Williams v. Penn Center for Rehabilitation and Care, 147 A.3d 590, 593 (Pa. Super. 2016), appeal denied, 2017 WL 1015635 (Pa. filed Mar. 17, 2017) (citation omitted). “[I]f the matter under review involves the interpretation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, we have before us a question of law, where our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Midwest Fin. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Murphy v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences2010Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424 , 622 A.2d 992 (1993). 2010Murphy v. Armstrong, 424 Pa.Super. 424 , 622 A.2d 992 (1993). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.