6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sanders Appealgreen2 sentences2018Given that neither the Superior Court nor the parties even recognize this binding precedent, let alone articulate a rationale for overruling it, there is no basis for us to do so here Such a sua sponte abrogation of precedent is particularly inappropriate in this case where the adoption of a different standard would not be outcome determinative By any standard including the one espoused by Justice Baer, the erroneously admitted evidence dwarfs ali other evidence in the case before us and thus reversal is required [J-1o-2018] - 23 the decision reached by the orphans’ court to terminate i\/lothe 2018See In re Sanders Children, 312 A.2d at 417 . | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of: D.N.G., Appeal of:A.G.green1 sentence2020See D.N.G., 230 A.3d at 368 . | 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. Allshouse
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 1243-44 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2017A divided panel of the Commonwealth Court vacated the UCBR’s ruling and remanded the matter for a new hearing, Powell v. UCBR, 128 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 5 The majority analyzed the interplay between Section 214 of the UC Law, the reasoning of the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) in Harkness v. UCBR, 591 Pa. 543 , 920 A.2d 162 (2007), 6 and Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217. 2017A divided panel of the Commonwealth Court vacated the UCBR’s ruling and remanded the matter for a new hearing, Powell v. UCBR, 128 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 5 The majority analyzed the interplay between Section 214 of the UC Law, the reasoning of the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) in Harkness v. UCBR, 591 Pa. 543 , 920 A.2d 162 (2007), 6 and Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Powell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
neutral
2 sentences2017A divided panel of the Commonwealth Court vacated the UCBR’s ruling and remanded the matter for a new hearing, Powell v. UCBR, 128 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 5 The majority analyzed the interplay between Section 214 of the UC Law, the reasoning of the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) in Harkness v. UCBR, 591 Pa. 543 , 920 A.2d 162 (2007), 6 and Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217. 2017Powell v. UCBR, 128 A.3d 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).5 The majority analyzed the interplay between Section 214 of the UC Law, the reasoning of the Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (OAJC) in Harkness v. UCBR, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007),6 and Disciplinary Enforcement Rule 217. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kudasik v. Board of Directors
neutral
2 sentences1983The reason for our remand order was that the School Board’s hearing of September 11, 1974 did not comply with the requirements of the Local Agency Law. 2 Kudasik v. Port Allegany School District, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 208 , 350 A.2d 887 (1976). 1983The reason for our remand order was that the School Board’s hearing of September 11, 1974 did not comply with the requirements of the Local Agency Law. 2 Kudasik v. Port Allegany School District, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 208 , 350 A.2d 887 (1976). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.