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.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1997–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
FMC Corp. v. Hollidaygreen2 sentences2000However, Northern was, in effect, overruled by the United States Supreme Court’s holding in FMC, supra. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the Third Circuit’s decision in FMC, noted its reliance on the rationale in Northern, that is, that “ ‘the deemer clause [was] meant mainly to reach backdoor attempts by states to regulate core ERISA concerns in the guise of insurance regulation.’ ” FMC, 498 U.S. at 56 , 111 S.Ct. at 406 , 112 L.Ed.2d at 363 (quoting FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 885 F.2d 79, 86 (3rd Cir. Pa.1989)). ¶ 19 In reversing the lower court decision, the Court reiterated that the breadth of 2000However, Northern was, in effect, overruled by the United States Supreme Court’s holding in FMC, supra. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the Third Circuit’s decision in FMC, noted its reliance on the rationale in Northern, that is, that “ ‘the deemer clause [was] meant mainly to reach backdoor attempts by states to regulate core ERISA concerns in the guise of insurance regulation.’ ” FMC, 498 U.S. at 56 , 111 S.Ct. at 406 , 112 L.Ed.2d at 363 (quoting FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 885 F.2d 79, 86 (3rd Cir. Pa.1989)). ¶ 19 In reversing the lower court decision, the Court reiterated that the breadth of | 1 | 3 |
Fmc Corporation v. Cynthia Ann Hollidayred1 sentence2000However, Northern was, in effect, overruled by the United States Supreme Court’s holding in FMC, supra. The Supreme Court, in reviewing the Third Circuit’s decision in FMC, noted its reliance on the rationale in Northern, that is, that “ ‘the deemer clause [was] meant mainly to reach backdoor attempts by states to regulate core ERISA concerns in the guise of insurance regulation.’ ” FMC, 498 U.S. at 56 , 111 S.Ct. at 406 , 112 L.Ed.2d at 363 (quoting FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 885 F.2d 79, 86 (3rd Cir. Pa.1989)). ¶ 19 In reversing the lower court decision, the Court reiterated that the breadth of | 1 | 1 |
Ed Seymour Shannon Seymour and Ed and Shannon Seymour as Guardians Ad Litem of Brayden Seymour v. Blue Cross/blue Shield, a Utah Corporationgreen2 sentences1998Winchester, supra at 1484 (Utah common-law decisions interpreting the phrase “accidental bodily injury” in insurance policies are saved from preemption, and are not subject to the deemer clause because the plan was insured rather than self-funded); see also Seymour, supra at 1023 (Utah statute governing unilateral modification of insurance contracts is saved from preemption, and is not subject to the deemer clause because plan was insured); Cutting, supra at 1295 (Wisconsin law setting limits on a plan’s right of subrogation is preempted by ERISA because the plan was self-funded). 1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. | 1 | 1 |
Diane M. Cutting and Warren L. Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences1998Winchester, supra at 1484 (Utah common-law decisions interpreting the phrase “accidental bodily injury” in insurance policies are saved from preemption, and are not subject to the deemer clause because the plan was insured rather than self-funded); see also Seymour, supra at 1023 (Utah statute governing unilateral modification of insurance contracts is saved from preemption, and is not subject to the deemer clause because plan was insured); Cutting, supra at 1295 (Wisconsin law setting limits on a plan’s right of subrogation is preempted by ERISA because the plan was self-funded). 1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. | 1 | 1 |
Julie M. Winchester v. Prudential Life Insurance Company of America, and Life Insurance Company of North Americagreen2 sentences1998Winchester, supra at 1484 (Utah common-law decisions interpreting the phrase “accidental bodily injury” in insurance policies are saved from preemption, and are not subject to the deemer clause because the plan was insured rather than self-funded); see also Seymour, supra at 1023 (Utah statute governing unilateral modification of insurance contracts is saved from preemption, and is not subject to the deemer clause because plan was insured); Cutting, supra at 1295 (Wisconsin law setting limits on a plan’s right of subrogation is preempted by ERISA because the plan was self-funded). 1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. | 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 v. Passaro
green
2 sentences2019While the right to appeal is unquestionably a significant right, nevertheless, our Constitution only guarantees our citizens be afforded the opportunity to exercise such right: "[T]he right to appeal is conditioned upon compliance with the procedures established by this Court, and a defendant who deliberately chooses to bypass the orderly procedures afforded one convicted of a crime for challenging his conviction is bound by the consequences of his decision." Passaro , 476 A.2d at 348 . 2019While the right to appeal is unquestionably a significant right, nevertheless, our Constitution only guarantees our citizens be afforded the opportunity to exercise such right: "[T]he right to appeal is conditioned upon compliance with the procedures established by this Court, and a defendant who deliberately chooses to bypass the orderly procedures afforded one convicted of a crime for challenging his conviction is bound by the consequences of his decision." Passaro , 476 A.2d at 348 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Geiger v. New York Life Insurance Co
green
1 sentence1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc
green
2 sentences1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. 1998Similarly, we are not persuaded by Cutting v. Jerome Foods, Inc., 993 F.2d 1293 (7th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 916 , 114 S.Ct. 308 , 126 L.Ed.2d 255 (1993), Seymour, supra or Winchester, supra. These cases ultimately follow FMC Corp. in standing for the proposition that Because a self-funded plan may not be deemed an insurance company, the saving clause does not save state insurance laws from preemption when applied to such a plan directly. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Commonwealth v. Borger
green
2 sentences1997The trial court denied Deemer's motion, stating: In this case, we were aware of the [ Com. v. ] Borger [ 429 Pa.Super. 209 , 632 A.2d 309 (1993)] decision at the time the defendant's post-trial motions were dismissed. 1997The trial court denied Deemer's motion, stating: In this case, we were aware of the [ Com. v. ] Borger [ 429 Pa.Super. 209 , 632 A.2d 309 (1993)] decision at the time the defendant's post-trial motions were dismissed. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
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.