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.
47 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1912–2025 17 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025This Court discharged the rule and deferred the issue of appellate jurisdiction to this panel.2 The question of “appealability of an order goes to the appellate court’s jurisdiction.” Williams v. Williams, 385 A.2d 422, 423 (Pa. Super. 1978) (en banc). 2024We have long held that the question of “appealability of an order goes to the appellate court’s jurisdiction . . . .” Williams v. Williams, 385 A.2d 422, 423 (Pa. Super. 1978) (en banc). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625 , 46 A.3d 715 (2012). -2- J-S28040-25 notice of appeal is timestamped as “Received in Supreme Court” on September 30, 2024, which indicates that Appellant erroneously filed the notice of appeal in the wrong court, but which still is facially untimely as beyond 30 days from the filing date of the court’s order. 2023Meanwhile, Appellant filed his brief in this Court. ____________________________________________ “[T]he prisoner mailbox rule provides that a pro se prisoner’s document is deemed filed on the date he delivers it to prison authorities for mailing.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 38 (Pa.Super. 2011) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2020On May 5, 2020, in a per curiam order, this Court discharged the rule to show cause order, advising the parties that the issue may be raised by the merits panel. -4- J-S36006-20 Gross, 2020 WL 2065574 , at *12; see also Commonwealth v. Anthony, 717 A.2d 1015, 1017 (Pa. 1998) (stating, “[t]he denial of a pretrial [m]otion to [d]ismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is subject to appellate review unless it appears that the claim is frivolous). 2020On May 5, 2020, in a per curiam order, this Court discharged the rule to show cause order, advising the parties that the issue may be raised by the merits panel. -4- J-S36006-20 Gross, 2020 WL 2065574 , at *12; see also Commonwealth v. Anthony, 717 A.2d 1015, 1017 (Pa. 1998) (stating, “[t]he denial of a pretrial [m]otion to [d]ismiss an indictment on double jeopardy grounds is subject to appellate review unless it appears that the claim is frivolous). | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Cross, P.green1 sentence2025We “may raise the issue of appellate jurisdiction sua sponte.” Commonwealth v. Cross, 317 A.3d 655, 657 (Pa. Super. 2024) (some ____________________________________________ 2 Weltner seeks to raise the following issues on appeal: 1. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bristergreen1 sentence2023We reiterate that the “appealability of an order directly implicates the jurisdiction of the court asked to review the order.” Commonwealth v. Brister, 16 A.3d 530, 533 (Pa. Super. 2011) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Friia v. Friiagreen1 sentence2023The Estate filed a response, and this Court discharged the rule without rendering a determination regarding appealability. -5- J-S09017-23 appropriate.” Friia v. Friia, 780 A.2d 664, 667 (Pa.Super. 2001) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
United Parcel Service v. Hohidergreen2 sentences2023Order, 12/27/22. -4- J-A20023-23 United Parcel Serv. v. Hohider, 954 A.2d 13 , 16 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emphasis added). 2023Order, 12/27/22. -4- J-A20023-23 United Parcel Serv. v. Hohider, 954 A.2d 13, 16 (Pa. Super. 2008) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Larkgreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth’s brief at 8-10 (citing, inter alia, Commonwealth v. Lark, 746 A.2d 585, 588 (Pa. 2000) (“When an appellant’s PCRA appeal is pending before a court, a subsequent PCRA petition cannot be filed until the resolution of review of the pending PCRA petition by the highest state court in which review is sought, or upon the expiration of the time for seeking such review.”)2). ____________________________________________ 1 This Court discharged the rule for determination by the merits panel. | 1 | 1 |
Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohenseegreen1 sentence2022See Order, 11/17/21. 7See also Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohensee, 270 A.2d 216, 223-24 (Pa. 1970). - 13 - J-A25036-22 This duty includes the responsibility to distribute the estate promptly.” In re McCrea's Estate, 380 A.2d 773, 775-76 (Pa. 1977) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of McCreagreen1 sentence2022See Order, 11/17/21. 7See also Scientific Living, Inc. v. Hohensee, 270 A.2d 216, 223-24 (Pa. 1970). - 13 - J-A25036-22 This duty includes the responsibility to distribute the estate promptly.” In re McCrea's Estate, 380 A.2d 773, 775-76 (Pa. 1977) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In the Int. of: S.D., Appeal of: J.D. and C.T.green2 sentences2022See In the Interest of S.D., 257 A.3d 746 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 981 (Pa.Super. 2019)). -4- J-A26011-21 briefs or at oral argument. 2022See In the Interest of S.D., 257 A.3d 746 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 , 981 (Pa.Super. 2019)). -4- J-A26011-21 briefs or at oral argument. | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of: M.P., Appeal of: S.M.green2 sentences2022See In the Interest of S.D., 257 A.3d 746 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976, 981 (Pa.Super. 2019)). -4- J-A26011-21 briefs or at oral argument. 2022See In the Interest of S.D., 257 A.3d 746 (Pa.Super. 2021) (citing In the Matter of M.P., 204 A.3d 976 , 981 (Pa.Super. 2019)). -4- J-A26011-21 briefs or at oral argument. | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Andrewsgreen1 sentence2022In re Estate of Andrews, 92 A.3d 1226, 1230 (Pa. Super. 2014) (footnote omitted).7 “An executor is required to exercise the same degree of judgment that a reasonable person would exercise in the management of his own estate. ____________________________________________ 6After receiving Jill’s response, this Court discharged the rule to show cause but referred the matter to the merits panel. | 1 | 1 |
Valentine v. Wrotengreen1 sentence2021See Valentine v. Wroten, 580 A.2d 757 , 758 (Pa. Super. 1990).6 Mother filed responses and, on January 15, 2021, this Court discharged the rule to show cause orders, finding that the trial court dockets showed that the October 1, 2020 orders of adjudication and disposition did not include Pa.R.A.P. 236(b) notice. | 1 | 1 |
In re L.M.green1 sentence2021See In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 509 (Pa. Super. 2007) (“Where there is no indication on the docket that Rule 236(b) notice has been given, then the appeal period has not begun to run. | 1 | 1 |
Shearer, D., Aplts. v. Hafer, S.green1 sentence2020Shearer v. Hafer, 177 A.3d 850, 855 (Pa. 2018). -4- J-A08036-20 Appellant presents two issues for our review: 1. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Handgungreen1 sentence2020We address the timeliness of appellants’ appeal because this “is a threshold question that implicates this [c]ourt’s jurisdiction.” Riverlife Task Force v. Planning Comm’n of the City of Pittsburgh, 966 A.2d 551, 556 (Pa. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
In Re KKgreen1 sentence2020Appellant timely complied by filing a response, in which she asserts that an order is final and appealable when it contains “a present finding of contempt and imposes sanctions.”3 See Response to Rule to Show Cause, 5/28/19, at 1 (single page) (citing In re K.K., 957 A.2d 298, 303 (Pa. Super. ____________________________________________ 3 Having received a response to the rule to show cause, this Court discharged the rule and allowed the appeal to proceed. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. HCR ManorCare, LLCgreen1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow 160 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 , 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005). 6 On January 30, 2020, this Court discharged the rule to show cause and referred the matter to the merits panel. | 1 | 1 |
| Rellick-Smith, S. v. Rellick, B.green | 1 | 1 |
| Estate of Considine v. Wachovia Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terra Technical Services, LLC v. River Station Land, L.P.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Burksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grimme Combustion, Inc. v. Mergentime Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Deviney v. Lynchgreen | 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, Aplt. v. Walker, T.
green
2 sentences2022By order of August 4, 2021, this Court discharged the rule to show cause, but advised that the issue could be revisited by the merits panel, and that counsel should be prepared to address the panel’s concerns either in their ____________________________________________ 8 This Court has applied the holding from Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), to children’s fast track appeals. 2022By order of August 4, 2021, this Court discharged the rule to show cause, but advised that the issue could be revisited by the merits panel, and that counsel should be prepared to address the panel’s concerns either in their ____________________________________________ 8 This Court has applied the holding from Commonwealth v. Walker, 185 A.3d 969 (Pa. 2018), to children’s fast track appeals. | 5 | 2019–2022 |
Consolidated National Bank v. McManus
green
2 sentences2022We characterized this as “equivalent to a grant of leave.” Id. . . . at 250. 2000We characterized this as “equivalent to a grant of leave.” Id. at 192 , 66 A. at 250 . | 2 | 2000–2022 |
Bailey v. Bailey
green
2 sentences1941It was said in Bailey v. Bailey, 338 Pa. 221, 222 , 12 A. 2d 577 , 578: “Because of the alluring generality of the term ‘fraud’ there is a temptation to employ it in- - discriminately, whereby it tends to degenerate into merely a trite epithet.” Here, no intent to defraud anyone -appears in the mortgage transaction. 1941It was said in Bailey v. Bailey , 338 Pa. 221 , 222 , 12 A.2d 577 , 578 : "Because of the alluring generality of the term 'fraud' there is a temptation to employ it indiscriminately, whereby it tends to degenerate into merely a trite epithet." Here, no intent to defraud anyone appears in the mortgage transaction. | 2 | 1941–1941 |
Carpenter v. Longan
green
1 sentence2022Appellants raise the following issues for our review: Did the [trial] court err by failing to apply the Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271 (1872) precedent to Appellee’s mortgage foreclosure, which established the common law rule that it is the note that must be assigned in order for Appellee to show it held enforceable interests in such note relative to Appellants, and to prove it had standing to foreclose against the mortgage? | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commonwealth v. Chester
green
1 sentence2021“Based upon the lack of recordation in the docket, we are unable to determine the date of service of the [o]rder[s], as required under Criminal Rule 114, and cannot conclude that [Appellant] failed to comply with the [] court's directive to file a concise statement.” Chester, 163 A.3d at 472 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re: Estate of Moskowitz, L.
green
1 sentence2021In re Estate of Moskowitz, 115 A.3d 372 , 388–89 (Pa. Super. 2015) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
1 sentence2020Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Finley
green
1 sentence2020Appellant lists the following two issues in his brief: ____________________________________________ 5Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 6 We note that this Court twice dismissed Appellant’s appeal: once, when he failed to file a docketing statement, and once when he failed to file a brief. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Turner
green
1 sentence2020Appellant lists the following two issues in his brief: ____________________________________________ 5Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). 6 We note that this Court twice dismissed Appellant’s appeal: once, when he failed to file a docketing statement, and once when he failed to file a brief. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Com. v. Creese, L., Sr.
green
1 sentence2020Thereafter, on January 28, 2020, the disposition of this case was stayed, pending the resolution of a number of en banc cases in this court concerning the proper application of Walker and Commonwealth v. Creese, 216 A.3d 1142 (Pa.Super. 2019). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Adams
green
1 sentence2020See Commonwealth v. Tchirkow 160 A.3d 798 (Pa. Super. 2017); Commonwealth v. Adams, 882 A.2d 496 , 497–98 (Pa. Super. 2005). 6 On January 30, 2020, this Court discharged the rule to show cause and referred the matter to the merits panel. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Commonwealth v. Williams green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commonwealth v. Grazier green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Keller v. Riverton Water Co. neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Ahl ex rel. Long v. Goodhart neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Albert M. Greenfield & Co. v. Roberts neutral | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Howard v. Flanigan neutral | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Mielcuszny Et Ux. v. Rosol (Et Ux.) green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Mallisee v. Hawkins green | 1 | 1937–1937 |
| Commonwealth v. Garramone neutral | 1 | 1935–1935 |
| Book v. Day green | 1 | 1931–1931 |
| Fernald v. Fernald neutral | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Haines v. Lone Star Shipbuilding Co. green | 1 | 1923–1923 |
| Kline v. Kline neutral | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Geiger's Estate neutral | 1 | 1920–1920 |
| Johnston v. Patterson green | 1 | 1912–1912 |
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.