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 6 courts 1968–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Central Contracting Co. v. C. E. Youngdahl & Co.green1 sentence2014The Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted in 1965, in Central Contracting Co., Youngdahl & Co., 209 A.2d 810, 816 (Pa. 1965), that the modem rule includes a recognition that private parties may not by contract prevent a court from asserting its jurisdiction nor may private parties change the rules of venue. | 1 | 1 |
Marshall v. Nugentgreen1 sentence1972J., in Marshall v. Nugent, 222 F. 2d 604, 610 (1st Cir. 1955), pointed out: “Bach of the requirement that the defendant’s culpable act must have been a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm is no doubt the widespread conviction that it would be disproportionately burdensome to hold a culpable actor potentially liable for all the injurious consequences that may flow from his act, i.e., that would not have been inflicted ‘but for’ the occurrence of the act.” Although §402A of Restatement 2d on Torts sets forth the modem rule of products liability, it has no provision dealing with the problem, | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sinn v. Burd
green
1 sentence2014In applying this modem standard to a duty of care analysis, Justice Nix stated, “...the concept of duty amounts to no more than, ‘the sum total of those considerations of policy which led the law, to say that a particular plaintiff is entitled to protection’ from the harm suffered.” Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Clark v. Troutman
green
2 sentences2001Clark v. Troutman, 509 Pa. 336 , 502 A.2d 137 (1985). 2001Clark v. Troutman, 509 Pa. 336 , 502 A.2d 137 (1985). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Crisante v. J. H. Beers, Inc.
green
1 sentence1987The two-year statute is made the general statute for tort claims (libel, slander and invasion of privacy with one-year periods of limitations constitute the principal exceptions).’ ” Id. 297 Pa. Super. 337 at 339-341 and 43 A.2d 1150 at 1151-1152. (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Tot v. United States
green
2 sentences1981DISCUSSION 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3926(d) provides as follows: “(d) Inference from using nonmetered utility service. — Any person having possession of or access to the location of a public utility meter or service measuring device which has been avoided or tampered with so as to inhibit or prevent the accurate measurement of utility service and who enjoys the use of or receives the benefit from the public utility service intended to be metered or measured by the public utility meter or measuring device so avoided or tampered with may be reasonably inferred to have acted to avoid or tamper with the publ 1981DISCUSSION 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3926(d) provides as follows: “(d) Inference from using nonmetered utility service. — Any person having possession of or access to the location of a public utility meter or service measuring device which has been avoided or tampered with so as to inhibit or prevent the accurate measurement of utility service and who enjoys the use of or receives the benefit from the public utility service intended to be metered or measured by the public utility meter or measuring device so avoided or tampered with may be reasonably inferred to have acted to avoid or tamper with the publ | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser
green
2 sentences1968The court there said: “. . . in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 396 Pa. 530, 534-535 , 153 A. 2d 901 (1959), this Court considered both the earlier Lindenfelser case and DeLuca case and stated the modem rule to be that where husband and wife are separated but not divorced and where one of them is excluded from the exercise or enjoyment of rights inherent in an estate held by the entireties, an accounting of the property so held may be ordered and the property or proceeds divided equally between them. 1968The court there said: “. . . in Lindenfelser v. Lindenfelser, 396 Pa. 530, 534-535 , 153 A. 2d 901 (1959), this Court considered both the earlier Lindenfelser case and DeLuca case and stated the modem rule to be that where husband and wife are separated but not divorced and where one of them is excluded from the exercise or enjoyment of rights inherent in an estate held by the entireties, an accounting of the property so held may be ordered and the property or proceeds divided equally between them. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.