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 1978–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Elkin v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2009In Elkin v. Bell Telephone of Pa., 491 Pa. 123 , 420 A.2d 371 (1980), our Supreme Court recognized primary jurisdiction as originally being a federal doctrine and explained: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. 2009In Elkin v. Bell Telephone of Pa., 491 Pa. 123 , 420 A.2d 371 (1980), our Supreme Court recognized primary jurisdiction as originally being a federal doctrine and explained: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
WESTON v. Reading Co.
green
2 sentences2019In Bean, this Court further explained: Although the primary jurisdiction doctrine was originally a federal doctrine that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Texas [& Pacific Railway] v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., [ 204 U.S. 426 , (1907)], our Supreme Court adopted it in Weston v. Reading Co., [ 282 A.2d 714 (Pa. 1971)], and further explained it in Elkin v. Bell Telephone of [Pennsylvania], [ 420 A.2d 123 , 371-376 (Pa. 1980)], as follows: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. 2004Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 , 27 S.Ct. 350 , 51 L.Ed. 553 , (1907), our Supreme Court adopted it in Weston v. Reading Co., 445 Pa. 182 , 282 A.2d 714 (1971), and further explained it in Elkin v. Bell Telephone of Pa., 491 Pa. 123, 132-133 , 420 A.2d 371 -376 (1980), as follows: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. | 3 | 1978–2019 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.
green
2 sentences2019In Bean, this Court further explained: Although the primary jurisdiction doctrine was originally a federal doctrine that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Texas [& Pacific Railway] v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., [ 204 U.S. 426 , (1907)], our Supreme Court adopted it in Weston v. Reading Co., [ 282 A.2d 714 (Pa. 1971)], and further explained it in Elkin v. Bell Telephone of [Pennsylvania], [ 420 A.2d 123 , 371-376 (Pa. 1980)], as follows: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. 2004Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 , 27 S.Ct. 350 , 51 L.Ed. 553 , (1907), our Supreme Court adopted it in Weston v. Reading Co., 445 Pa. 182 , 282 A.2d 714 (1971), and further explained it in Elkin v. Bell Telephone of Pa., 491 Pa. 123, 132-133 , 420 A.2d 371 -376 (1980), as follows: The principles of the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are well settled. | 2 | 2004–2019 |