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 1914–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Majeed
green
1 sentence2026The Pennsylvania Supreme Court -6- J-A10023-26 granted review “to decide whether an individual can be convicted of burglarizing a home he or she owns after entering the premises in violation of a PFA Order.” Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
J. C. Grille, Inc. Liquor License Case
green
1 sentence2018"It is for the benefit of all of them that the occupation and enjoyment of their respective dwellings be free from the annoyances inherent in the unlimited commercial use of the premises in violation of the agreement." Id. at 465-66, 124 A.2d at 664-65 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
4828 Pace's Lounge, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
neutral
1 sentence1993Licensee paid the fines associated with these citations. [3] This Court's scope of review in a liquor license renewal case is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination and whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. 4828 Pace's Lounge v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 144 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 155, 601 A.2d 408 (1991). [4] Section 471 of the Code provides in pertinent part: (a) Upon learning of any violation of this act or any laws of this Commonwealth relating to liquor, alcohol, or malt or brewed | 1 | 1993–1993 |
I. B. P. O. E. Liquor License Case
green
2 sentences1976Liquor License Case, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 395 , 62 A.2d 68 (1948), and permitting gambling on the premises is a violation of Section 5513 of the Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §101 et seq. 1976Liquor License Case, 163 Pa. Superior Ct. 395 , 62 A.2d 68 (1948), and permitting gambling on the premises is a violation of Section 5513 of the Crimes Code, Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, as amended, 18 Pa. C.S. §101 et seq. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Weiss v. Friedman's Hotel
green
2 sentences1975Weiss v. Friedman’s Hotel, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 98 , 106 A. 2d 867 (1954). 1975Weiss v. Friedman’s Hotel, 176 Pa. Superior Ct. 98 , 106 A. 2d 867 (1954). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Cohen v. Conrad
green
1 sentence1934In order that a tenant may rely on constructive eviction to avoid payment of the rent contracted for, he must abandon the premises: Leiferman v. Osten, 167 Ill. 93 ; Cohen v. Conrad, 110 Minn. 207 ; Licker v. Rudd, 146 Atl. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Leiferman v. Osten
neutral
1 sentence1934In order that a tenant may rely on constructive eviction to avoid payment of the rent contracted for, he must abandon the premises: Leiferman v. Osten, 167 Ill. 93 ; Cohen v. Conrad, 110 Minn. 207 ; Licker v. Rudd, 146 Atl. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Donnelly v. Frick & Lindsay Co.
green
1 sentence1914When, therefore, such fixtures are placed on the premises the presumption is that at the expiration of the lease the tenant will remove them: Donnelly v. Frick & Lindsay, 207 Pa. 597 ; Radey v. McCurdy, 209 Pa. 306 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
Radey v. McCurdy
neutral
1 sentence1914When, therefore, such fixtures are placed on the premises the presumption is that at the expiration of the lease the tenant will remove them: Donnelly v. Frick & Lindsay, 207 Pa. 597 ; Radey v. McCurdy, 209 Pa. 306 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.