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 1971–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fulano, J. v. Fanjul Corp.green2 sentences2024Pa.R.C.P. 1012(a). ____________________________________________ 5 While Appellant filed her notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 15, 2023 order reinstating its April 27, 2023 order transferring venue based on the Patel Appellants’ preliminary objections, we also review the trial court’s separate order transferring venue based on Dr. Abreu’s preliminary objections. “[I]n the circumstance where each of the defendants in a single action is dismissed prior to trial, an appeal from the order dismissing the remaining claim or party is sufficient to bring for review the earlier issued orders.” 2024Pa.R.C.P. 1012(a). ____________________________________________ 5 While Appellant filed her notice of appeal from the trial court’s May 15, 2023 order reinstating its April 27, 2023 order transferring venue based on the Patel Appellants’ preliminary objections, we also review the trial court’s separate order transferring venue based on Dr. Abreu’s preliminary objections. “[I]n the circumstance where each of the defendants in a single action is dismissed prior to trial, an appeal from the order dismissing the remaining claim or party is sufficient to bring for review the earlier issued orders.” | 1 | 1 |
Fleehr v. Mummertgreen1 sentence2016Further, this Court has explained, “A defendant manifests an intent to submit to the court's jurisdiction when the defendant takes some action (beyond merely entering a written appearance) going to the merits of the case, which evidences an intent to forego objection to the defective service.” Fleehr v. Mummert, 857 A.2d 683, 685 (Pa. Super. 2004) (internal citations and quotations 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 |
|---|---|---|
Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co.
green
2 sentences1973Such appearance shall not constitute a waiver of the right to raise any defense including questions of jurisdiction or venue.” In Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 417 Pa. 135 , 208 A.2d 252 (1965), it was held that defendant’s appearance to rule plaintiff to file a complaint did not waive defendant’s right to challenge venue. 1973Such appearance shall not constitute a waiver of the right to raise any defense including questions of jurisdiction or venue.” In Monaco v. Montgomery Cab Co., 417 Pa. 135 , 208 A.2d 252 (1965), it was held that defendant’s appearance to rule plaintiff to file a complaint did not waive defendant’s right to challenge venue. | 4 | 1971–1978 |
Hohlstein v. Hohlstein
green
1 sentence1974Hohlstein v. Hohlstein, 223 Pa. Superior Ct. 348, 352 , 206 A. 2d 886 (1972). 8 The appellee argued that appellant did not comply with Rule 2252(b) which requires that a complaint be filed within twenty days of the service of a writ when a party is sought to be joined by writ of summons. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.