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 3 courts 2014–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Passarello v. Grumbinegreen2 sentences2025If the decision announced a new rule, the court should then consider whether: (1) retroactive effect will further or hinder the purpose of the new rule; (2) the parties will be unfairly prejudiced because they relied on the old rule; and (3) giving the new rule retroactive effect will detrimentally affect the administration of justice. 16 Passarello v. Grumbine, 87 A.3d 285, 307 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 2025If the decision announced a new rule, the court should then consider whether: (1) retroactive effect will further or hinder the purpose of the new rule; (2) the parties will be unfairly prejudiced because they relied on the old rule; and (3) giving the new rule retroactive effect will detrimentally affect the administration of justice. 16 Passarello v. Grumbine, 87 A.3d 285, 307 (Pa. 2014) (internal citations and quotations omitted). | 4 | 4 |
Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrickgreen1 sentence2019Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 749 A.2d 441, 444 (Pa. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Blackwell v. Com. State Ethics Com'ngreen1 sentence2019Blackwell v. State Ethics Comm’n, 589 A.2d 1094, 1098-99 (Pa. 1991) (internal citations omitted). 12 Before considering the breadth of Pocono Mountain’s application, we must first determine, as a threshold matter, if the decision announced a new rule of law. | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp.green2 sentences2014Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp., 547 Pa. 402 , 690 A.2d 1146, 1151 (1997). 17 Appellants argue that Pringle established a new rule of law because it explicitly removed the discretion trial courts previously possessed to give an “error in judgment” charge. 2014Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp., 547 Pa. 402 , 690 A.2d 1146, 1151 (1997). 17 Appellants argue that Pringle established a new rule of law because it explicitly removed the discretion trial courts previously possessed to give an “error in judgment” charge. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||