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 1899–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania National Bank & Trust Co. v. CCNB Bank, N.A.green2 sentences2004See Pennsylvania Nat'l Bank & Trust, 446 Pa.Super. at 631 , 667 A.2d at 1154 . 2004See Pennsylvania Nat'l Bank & Trust, 446 Pa.Super. at 631 , 667 A.2d at 1154 . | 1 | 1 |
Buck v. Colbathgreen2 sentences1981See Buck v. Colbath, supra, [ 3 Wall. 344 ] 342 [ 70 U.S. 334, 342 , 18 L.Ed. 257 ]; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 [ 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 ] and cases cited at pages 230-231 [ 43 S.Ct. at 81 ]. 1981See Buck v. Colbath, supra, [ 3 Wall. 344 ] 342 [ 70 U.S. 334, 342 , 18 L.Ed. 257 ]; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 [ 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 ] and cases cited at pages 230-231 [ 43 S.Ct. at 81 ]. | 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. Reese
green
1 sentence2022Reese, 156 A.3d at 1258 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kline v. Burke Construction Co.
green
2 sentences1981See Buck v. Colbath, supra, [ 3 Wall. 344 ] 342 [ 70 U.S. 334, 342 , 18 L.Ed. 257 ]; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 [ 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 ] and cases cited at pages 230-231 [ 43 S.Ct. at 81 ]. 1981See Buck v. Colbath, supra, [ 3 Wall. 344 ] 342 [ 70 U.S. 334, 342 , 18 L.Ed. 257 ]; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 [ 43 S.Ct. 79 , 67 L.Ed. 226 ] and cases cited at pages 230-231 [ 43 S.Ct. at 81 ]. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Coyle v. Port Authority Transit Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1981Transit Corp. et al., 438 Pa. 99 , 263 A.2d 739 (1970) where “comity” between states, rather than the priority principle, controlled the decision, underlying the decision of the court below (from which the appeal was taken) was an order of the New Jersey Superior Court at variance with orders of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County. 1981Transit Corp. et al., 438 Pa. 99 , 263 A.2d 739 (1970) where “comity” between states, rather than the priority principle, controlled the decision, underlying the decision of the court below (from which the appeal was taken) was an order of the New Jersey Superior Court at variance with orders of the Common Pleas Court of Philadelphia County. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Morris Estate
neutral
1 sentence1944The legislation subsequent to the Act of 1915 is reviewed in Morris Estate, 347 Pa. 233 (1943). | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Bell v. Throop
green
2 sentences1941The facts distinguish it from Bell v. Throop, 140 Pa. 641 , 21 A. 408 , and the cases following it. 1941The facts distinguish it from Bell v. Throop, 140 Pa. 641 , 21 A. 408 , and the cases following it. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Fox v. Seal
green
2 sentences1899Sharswood, J., delivering the opinion quotes the language of Justice Strong in Fox v. Seal, 22 Wall. 424 , with reference to this resolution as follows : “ The language of the resolution is too clear to admit of question, that the. legislature intended to give an unpaid contractor a priority of claim to the company’s property, over every right that might be acquired by a mortgagee, or acquired under a mortgage, if the mortgage was made after the debt to the contractor was made.” It would follow from this that as between the parties to the mortgage, and as against all other persons the mortgage 1899Sharswood, J., delivering the opinion quotes the language of Justice Strong in Fox v. Seal, 22 Wall. 424 , with reference to this resolution as follows : “ The language of the resolution is too clear to admit of question, that the. legislature intended to give an unpaid contractor a priority of claim to the company’s property, over every right that might be acquired by a mortgagee, or acquired under a mortgage, if the mortgage was made after the debt to the contractor was made.” It would follow from this that as between the parties to the mortgage, and as against all other persons the mortgage | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Shamokin Valley & Pottsville Railroad v. Malone
green
1 sentence1899Co. v. Malone, 85 Pa. 25 , that the object of the resolution was simply to give a priority of claim over the mortgage to the contractors and others. | 1 | 1899–1899 |
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.