6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1917–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Madrid v. St. Joseph Hospital
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 3 | 2015–2015 |
First National Bank v. Fidelity Title & Trust Co.
neutral
2 sentences1949Co., 251 Pa. 536, 542 , 97 A. 77 , it is said that “The court can abuse its discretionary power as to the law as well as to the facts in passing upon an application for a new trial, and when [as here] a new trial is based on a plain and palpable error of law applicable to the facts of the case, it is such an abuse of discretion as will warrant a reversal”. 1949Co., 251 Pa. 536, 542 , 97 A. 77 , it is said that “The court can abuse its discretionary power as to the law as well as to the facts in passing upon an application for a new trial, and when [as here] a new trial is based on a plain and palpable error of law applicable to the facts of the case, it is such an abuse of discretion as will warrant a reversal”. | 3 | 1917–1949 |
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.