failed rule in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1963–2024 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.

Followed or applied (4)

Case	Followed	Cited
Kinney, B. v. Lacey, A.green pasuperct · 2021 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024See Kinney v. Lacey, 252 A.3d 644 , 647 n.5 (Pa. Super. 2021); Pa.R.C.P. 227.4(b).	1	1
Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing v. McMahongreen pa · 1994 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. McMahon, 539 Pa. 1 , 650 A.2d 36 (1994); Schoff (holding that an order granting reconsideration will only be effective if it is made and entered on the docket before expiration of the applicable appeal period). 1998See Pennsylvania Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing v. McMahon, 539 Pa. 1 , 650 A.2d 36 (1994); Schoff (holding that an order granting reconsideration will only be effective if it is made and entered on the docket before expiration of the applicable appeal period).	1	1
Demchuk v. Bralowgreen pa · 1961 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1
Robinson v. Wirtsgreen pa · 1956 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1963–1963 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

Case	Cited	Years
Montgomery v. Louisiana green · 2016 1 sentence 2019Montgomery, 136 S.Ct. at 732 . -2- J-S77020-18 court deferred sentencing five times, and his Judgment of Sentence is not final because the trial court failed to rule on a pre-sentence oral Motion to Remove Counsel.	1	2019–2019
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green scotus · 1993 2 sentences 2016Helen Fritz claims that the trial court failed to rule upon several pretrial motions in limine, including a ruling on the proper standard for an expert witness (Daubert13/Frye14 claim), the diminution of the Clarks’ property value, and how the Clarks’ health was affected by the operation of the furnace.15 Helen asserts that failure to rule upon these motions prior to trial constituted “reversible error that can only be cured by a new trial.” ____________________________________________ 13 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 125 L. 2016Helen Fritz claims that the trial court failed to rule upon several pretrial motions in limine, including a ruling on the proper standard for an expert witness (Daubert13/Frye14 claim), the diminution of the Clarks’ property value, and how the Clarks’ health was affected by the operation of the furnace.15 Helen asserts that failure to rule upon these motions prior to trial constituted “reversible error that can only be cured by a new trial.” ____________________________________________ 13 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 , 125 L.	1	2016–2016
Frye v. United States red cadc · 1923 1 sentence 2016Ed. 2d 469 , 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993). 14 Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.	1	2016–2016
Commonwealth v. Suor green pacommwct · 1973 2 sentences 1974Commonwealth v. Suor, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 503 , 308 A. 2d 646 (1973). 1974Commonwealth v. Suor, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 503 , 308 A. 2d 646 (1973).	1	1974–1974
Donaldson v. Maffucci green pa · 1959 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1963–1963
Williams v. LeBar neutral pa · 1891 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1963–1963
Richards v. Willard neutral pa · 1896 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1963–1963
Ward v. Garvin green pa · 1937 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1963–1963
Duckworth v. Bennett green pa · 1935 2 sentences 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases 1963A. The Failure to Use X-rays Smith’s contention is that, in view of the factual situation presented, the proof that Dr. Yohe failed to employ X-rays as an aid to the diagnosis of Mr. Smith’s condition presented a prima facie case of negligence which the trial court should have submitted to the jury- In considering this contention certain well settled principles in this area of the law must be kept in mind: (a) in the absence of a special contract, a physician neither warrants a cure nor guarantees the result of his treatment (Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548, 553 , 156 A. 2d 835 , and cases	1	1963–1963

Where else courts name it

TX 46 (1905–2025) OH 37 (1996–2026) CA 32 (1911–2025) NY 28 (1987–2025) IL 26 (1974–2026) GA 13 (1977–2023) FL 12 (1924–2019) LA 12 (1989–2022) AL 10 (1976–2011) MO 6 (1997–2023) PA 6 (1963–2024) NV 6 (1968–2015) TN 6 (2000–2020) MI 6 (1994–2023) NM 5 (1967–2004) VA 5 (2012–2015) IN 5 (1994–2019) NC 5 (1987–2010) AR 5 (1992–2004) MS 4 (1961–2015) NE 4 (2006–2023) SC 4 (2001–2018) WA 4 (2015–2026) MD 4 (1971–1999) CT 4 (1996–2019) IA 4 (2014–2018) CO 4 (1979–2026) WV 3 (1993–2010) AZ 3 (2016–2020) OK 3 (2004–2009) UT 2 (2013–2019) NJ 2 (1994–2019) MN 2 (2015–2025) KY 2 (1961–2022) DE 2 (2020–2023)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check