6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whittington v. Episcopal Hospitalgreen1 sentence2024Instead, the Thompson Court, in explaining the scope of a hospital’s general responsibility, “outlin[ed] the boundaries of the doctrine” by imposing liability upon a hospital if it “fail[ed] to uphold any one of the . . . four [expressly enumerated] duties.” Whittington, 768 A.2d at 1149 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson v. Nason Hospitalgreen1 sentence2001Id. at 707-708. ¶ 16 Here, appellees established that Episcopal failed to ensure the decedent’s safety and well being at the hospital, thus breaching the standard of care owed to decedent. | 1 | 1 |
Roosevelt Hotel Ltd. Partnership v. Sweeneygreen2 sentences1988Roosevelt Hotel Limited Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Iowa 1986). 1988Roosevelt Hotel Limited Partnership v. Sweeney, 394 N.W.2d 353, 357 (Iowa 1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. El-Daief
green
2 sentences2021“Absent a constitutional claim, we decline to question the legislative judgment.” Id. at 369 . 2021“Absent a constitutional claim, we decline to question the legislative judgment.” Id. at 369 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Wolgemuth v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2007Wogelmuth, 535 A.2d at 1151 . ¶ 14 While we are both mindful of and sympathetic to the concerns of the learned trial court regarding possible criminal violations of the grand jury process vis-à-vis the Shield Law privilege, we, like the trial court, are forbidden from reading into the Shield Law an exception neither enacted by the General Assembly nor found by the Supreme Court as the result of a developing body of law. 2007Wogelmuth, 535 A.2d at 1151 . ¶ 14 While we are both mindful of and sympathetic to the concerns of the learned trial court regarding possible criminal violations of the grand jury process vis-a-vis the Shield Law privilege, we, like the trial court, are forbidden from reading into the Shield Law an exception neither enacted by the General Assembly nor found by the Supreme Court as the result of a developing body of law. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.