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 2011–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwoodgreen2 sentences2025However, the Supreme Court has also explained that when a federal statute contains an express preemption clause, courts “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 594 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993)). 2014Easterwood, 507 U.S. at 663-64 , 113 S.Ct. 1732 (citations omitted). | 2 | 4 |
Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whitinggreen1 sentence2025However, the Supreme Court has also explained that when a federal statute contains an express preemption clause, courts “focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress’ preemptive intent.” Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582, 594 (2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 664 (1993)). | 1 | 1 |
Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustgreen1 sentence2025Further, when a Congressional statute contains an express preemption clause, courts “do not invoke any presumption against pre- emption[.]” Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-free Trust, 579 U.S. 115, 125 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Faison v. Turnergreen1 sentence2022See Faison v. Turner, 858 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Pa. Super. 2004) (setting forth factors a trial court should consider when determining whether a failure to appear should be excused); Petrone v. Whirlwind, Inc., 664 A.2d 172, 175 (Pa. Super. 1995) (identifying a distinction between a “sufficient excuse for failing (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 16 - J-A14037-22 In contrast, when addressing a defendant’s failure to appear, Rule 218 is worded not in terms of what the trial court may do but, instead, in terms of what the plaintiff may do. | 1 | 1 |
Petrone v. Whirlwind, Inc.green1 sentence2022See Faison v. Turner, 858 A.2d 1244, 1246-47 (Pa. Super. 2004) (setting forth factors a trial court should consider when determining whether a failure to appear should be excused); Petrone v. Whirlwind, Inc., 664 A.2d 172, 175 (Pa. Super. 1995) (identifying a distinction between a “sufficient excuse for failing (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 16 - J-A14037-22 In contrast, when addressing a defendant’s failure to appear, Rule 218 is worded not in terms of what the trial court may do but, instead, in terms of what the plaintiff may do. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Crisp
green
1 sentence2016In Commonwealth v. Crisp, 657 A.2d 5 (Pa.Super. 1995), we rejected a virtually identical argument as discordant with both the plain wording of the standard written parole agreement and the purposes the parole system is clearly intended to achieve. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr
green
2 sentences2011Though the statutory language may clearly indicate that Congress intended to preempt "at least some state law," we must "identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (internal quotation omitted). 2011Though the statutory language may clearly indicate that Congress intended to preempt "at least some state law," we must "identify the domain expressly pre-empted by that language." Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 484 , 116 S.Ct. 2240 , 135 L.Ed.2d 700 (1996) (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine
green
2 sentences2011Our review of an express preemption clause "must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent." Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 62-63 , 123 S.Ct. 518 , 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002) (citation and quotation omitted). 2011Our review of an express preemption clause "must in the first instance focus on the plain wording of the clause, which necessarily contains the best evidence of Congress' pre-emptive intent." Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine, 537 U.S. 51, 62-63 , 123 S.Ct. 518 , 154 L.Ed.2d 466 (2002) (citation and quotation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.