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 1971–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Port of Boston Marine Terminal Assn. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlanticgreen2 sentences2025The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 , 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970) (footnote and citations omitted). 2025The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 , 27 L.Ed.2d 203 (1970) (footnote and citations omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Elkin v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pennsylvaniagreen2 sentences2009The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” The doctrine “... requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” 491 Pa. at 132 , 420 A.2d at 376 (internal citations omitted.) As to its effect, our Supreme Court then went on to state: It is equally important to realize what the doctrine is not-it is not simply a polite gesture of deference to the agency seeking an advisory opinion wherein the court is f 2009The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” The doctrine “... requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” 491 Pa. at 132 , 420 A.2d at 376 (internal citations omitted.) As to its effect, our Supreme Court then went on to state: It is equally important to realize what the doctrine is not-it is not simply a polite gesture of deference to the agency seeking an advisory opinion wherein the court is f | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Philadelphia National Bankgreen2 sentences1978The doctrine ‘ . . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.’ United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 353 , 83 S.Ct. 1715, 1736 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 915 ] (1963). 1978The doctrine ‘ . . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.’ United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 353 , 83 S.Ct. 1715, 1736 [ 10 L.Ed.2d 915 ] (1963). | 2 | 2 |
WESTON v. Reading Co.green2 sentences1980The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 [, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 ] (1970) (footnote and citations omitted).’ The doctrine “. . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 59, 68 , 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 [, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1956). (furthe 1980The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 [, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 ] (1970) (footnote and citations omitted).’ The doctrine “. . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 59, 68 , 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 [, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1956). (furthe | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Western Pacific Railroadgreen2 sentences1980The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 [, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 ] (1970) (footnote and citations omitted).’ The doctrine “. . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 59, 68 , 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 [, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1956). (furthe 1980The doctrine of primary jurisdiction has become one of the key judicial switches through which this current has passed.” Port of Boston Marine Terminal Ass’n. v. Rederiaktiebolaget Trans-Atlantic, 400 U.S. 62, 68 , 91 S.Ct. 203, 208 [, 27 L.Ed.2d 203 ] (1970) (footnote and citations omitted).’ The doctrine “. . . requires judicial abstention in cases where protection of the integrity of a regulatory scheme dictates preliminary resort to the agency which administers the scheme.” United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 352 U.S. 59, 68 , 77 S.Ct. 161, 165 [, 1 L.Ed.2d 126 ] (1956). (furthe | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.