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 5 courts 1959–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Douglas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2019Bd. of Review, 151 A.3d 1188, 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 2018Bd. of Review, 151 A.3d 1188, 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Meierdierck v. MILLERgreen2 sentences1980The reason for the rule is that one who mails a letter is devoid of any ability to prove receipt of the letter by the addressee: Meierdierck v. Miller, 394 Pa. 484, 487 , 147 A. 2d 406, 408 (1959). 1964Defendant relies on Meierdierck v. Miller, 394 Pa. 484 , where the court held as follows at page 487: “While the general rule is that depositing a properly addressed prepaid letter in the post office raises the presumption that it reaches the destination by due course of the mail, and mailing a letter in such a way is prima facie evidence that it was received by the persons to whom it was addressed, Cameron Estate, 388 Pa. 25, 35 , 130 A. 2d 173 (1957), does the denial of the receipt of the letter by the addressee (here the insurance company-garnishee) nullify the presumption and leave the que | 1 | 2 |
Dull v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2018Dull v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 1077, 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cameron Estate
green
2 sentences2003There the Court poses the following rhetorical question while contemplating the prospect of overcoming the presumption of receipt of a duly mailed letter: While the general rule is that depositing a properly addressed prepaid letter in the post office raises the presumption that it reaches the destination by due course of the mail, and mailing a letter in such a way is prima facie evidence -that it was received by the persons to whom it was addressed, Cameron Estate, 388 Pa. 25, 35 , 130 A.2d 173 (1957), does the denial of the receipt of the letter by the addressee (here the insurance company- 2003There the Court poses the following rhetorical question while contemplating the prospect of overcoming the presumption of receipt of a duly mailed letter: While the general rule is that depositing a properly addressed prepaid letter in the post office raises the presumption that it reaches the destination by due course of the mail, and mailing a letter in such a way is prima facie evidence -that it was received by the persons to whom it was addressed, Cameron Estate, 388 Pa. 25, 35 , 130 A.2d 173 (1957), does the denial of the receipt of the letter by the addressee (here the insurance company- | 3 | 1959–2003 |