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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ertel v. Patriot-News Co.green1 sentence2018Failure to adduce this evidence establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 674 A.2d 1038, 1042 (Pa. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Holt Hauling & Warehousing Systems, Inc. v. Aronow Roofing Co.green2 sentences2007Holt Hauling and Warehouse Sys., Inc. v. Aronow Roofing Co., 309 Pa.Super. 158 , 454 A.2d 1131, 1133 (1983). ¶ 29 Here, the tersely worded Affidavit of Broder submitted in support of Conrail’s objection to venue in Cambria County does not address any activity by or involving Conrail before 1999 nor does it address the factual allegations at paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 16 of the Complaints relevant to the alleged “staging area” said to have existed in Cambria County prior to 1999. 2007Holt Hauling and Warehouse Sys., Inc. v. Aronow Roofing Co., 309 Pa.Super. 158 , 454 A.2d 1131, 1133 (1983). ¶ 29 Here, the tersely worded Affidavit of Broder submitted in support of Conrail’s objection to venue in Cambria County does not address any activity by or involving Conrail before 1999 nor does it address the factual allegations at paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 16 of the Complaints relevant to the alleged “staging area” said to have existed in Cambria County prior to 1999. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. County of Alleghenyred2 sentences2000See Appeal of Mesta Machine Co., 347 Pa. 191 , 32 A.2d 236, 241 (1943), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Allegheny Co., 322 U.S. 174 , 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 (1944) (reasoning that where it appeared from disposition of case on appeal that appellant was not harmed by trial court’s action, reviewing court need not pass on question of whether trial court erred). ¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Dr. Shelton’s report, as supplemented by her deposition testimony, comported with 2000See Appeal of Mesta Machine Co., 347 Pa. 191 , 32 A.2d 236, 241 (1943), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Allegheny Co., 322 U.S. 174 , 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 (1944) (reasoning that where it appeared from disposition of case on appeal that appellant was not harmed by trial court’s action, reviewing court need not pass on question of whether trial court erred). ¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Dr. Shelton’s report, as supplemented by her deposition testimony, comported with | 1 | 1 |
Mesta Machine Company Casegreen2 sentences2000See Appeal of Mesta Machine Co., 347 Pa. 191 , 32 A.2d 236, 241 (1943), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Allegheny Co., 322 U.S. 174 , 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 (1944) (reasoning that where it appeared from disposition of case on appeal that appellant was not harmed by trial court’s action, reviewing court need not pass on question of whether trial court erred). ¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Dr. Shelton’s report, as supplemented by her deposition testimony, comported with 2000See Appeal of Mesta Machine Co., 347 Pa. 191 , 32 A.2d 236, 241 (1943), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Allegheny Co., 322 U.S. 174 , 64 S.Ct. 908 , 88 L.Ed. 1209 (1944) (reasoning that where it appeared from disposition of case on appeal that appellant was not harmed by trial court’s action, reviewing court need not pass on question of whether trial court erred). ¶ 17 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the order granting summary judgment and remand this matter to the trial court to determine whether Dr. Shelton’s report, as supplemented by her deposition testimony, comported with | 1 | 1 |
Cope Estategreen2 sentences1993Rhoads v. Lancaster Parking Authority, 103 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 520 A.2d 122 (1987); see also In re Cope's Estate, 351 Pa. 514 , 41 A.2d 617 (1944) (a decree need not be reversed if sustained by one of two alternative grounds adopted by the lower court as a basis of its decision). . 1993Rhoads v. Lancaster Parking Authority, 103 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 520 A.2d 122 (1987); see also In re Cope's Estate, 351 Pa. 514 , 41 A.2d 617 (1944) (a decree need not be reversed if sustained by one of two alternative grounds adopted by the lower court as a basis of its decision). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gardner, F. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation
green
1 sentence2023Accordingly, this Court consolidated the appeals as joint appeals, designated 2807 EDA 2022 as the lead appeal, and directed APUI to file a formal averment (after Conrail’s brief was filed) stating that it joins in Conrail’s brief, which it did. -3- J-A17005-23 Gardner v. Conrail, 100 A.3d 280 (Pa. Super. 2014). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hanselman v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Hanselman , 158 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 574 — 75, 632 A.2d at 610 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hospital
green
2 sentences1995On December 23, 1992, this court issued an order quashing the portion of Conrail’s appeal which pertained to Judge Horgos’ October 25, 1990 order denying Conrail’s motion for summary judgment as that order was interlocutory and was not appealed pursuant to section 702(b) of the Judicial Code and Pa.RAJP. 1311. 2 In Hanselman I this court, citing Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hospital, 522 Pa. 325 , 561 A.2d 733 (1989), held that the releases executed by Hanselman and Gasper were general releases which discharged all parties from liability for Hanselman’s and Gasper’s claims arising out of the Septem 1995On December 23, 1992, this court issued an order quashing the portion of Conrail’s appeal which pertained to Judge Horgos’ October 25, 1990 order denying Conrail’s motion for summary judgment as that order was interlocutory and was not appealed pursuant to section 702(b) of the Judicial Code and Pa.RAJP. 1311. 2 In Hanselman I this court, citing Buttermore v. Aliquippa Hospital, 522 Pa. 325 , 561 A.2d 733 (1989), held that the releases executed by Hanselman and Gasper were general releases which discharged all parties from liability for Hanselman’s and Gasper’s claims arising out of the Septem | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rhoads Et Ux. v. Lancaster Park. Auth.
green
1 sentence1993Rhoads v. Lancaster Parking Authority, 103 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 303, 520 A.2d 122 (1987); see also In re Cope's Estate, 351 Pa. 514 , 41 A.2d 617 (1944) (a decree need not be reversed if sustained by one of two alternative grounds adopted by the lower court as a basis of its decision). . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.