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 1863–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. O'Hayergreen1 sentence2002The technician in O’Hayer had some education and quite a bit of experience and we declined to find her unqualified stating that to do so would “render the language in the present statute relating to the rebanee upon ‘experience’, as a criterion to satisfy the qualification requirement, to mere surplusage.” Id. at 653. ¶ 25 In the present case, the evidence of record established that the technician had two years of education at Alfred State College where he earned an Associates Degree in medical technology. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Whalen v. United States
green
2 sentences1984We went on to emphasize the qualification on that rule: “[W]here the offenses are the same ... cumulative sentences are not permitted, unless elsewhere specially authorized by Congress.” Id., at 693 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 [1438] (emphasis added). 1984We went on to emphasize the qualification on that rule: “[W]here the offenses are the same ... cumulative sentences are not permitted, unless elsewhere specially authorized by Congress.” Id., at 693 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 [1438] (emphasis added). | 2 | 1983–1984 |
Missouri v. Hunter
green
2 sentences1984Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366-367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (emphasis in original). 1984Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366-367 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-679 , 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
McCahill v. Roberts
green
2 sentences1983Goldman v. McShain, supra, McCahill v. Roberts, 421 Pa. 233 , 219 A.2d 306 (1966). 1983Goldman v. McShain, supra, McCahill v. Roberts, 421 Pa. 233 , 219 A.2d 306 (1966). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
France's Estate
green
1 sentence1916We can discover in the will no intention on the part of the testator to sever the produce from its source, and in the absence of such intention the rule just quoted applies.” It may be important, however, at this stage of the discussion to keep in mind a qualification of the principle just stated'which is thus declared by Mr. 'Justice Mercur in Cooper v. Pogue, 92 Pa. 254 : “While a devise of the income and profits of land is a devise of the land itself, yet it is a devise of it for no longer period of time than the testator gave the income and profits: France’s Est., 75 Pa. 220 .” After the u | 1 | 1916–1916 |
Cooper v. Pogue
neutral
1 sentence1916We can discover in the will no intention on the part of the testator to sever the produce from its source, and in the absence of such intention the rule just quoted applies.” It may be important, however, at this stage of the discussion to keep in mind a qualification of the principle just stated'which is thus declared by Mr. 'Justice Mercur in Cooper v. Pogue, 92 Pa. 254 : “While a devise of the income and profits of land is a devise of the land itself, yet it is a devise of it for no longer period of time than the testator gave the income and profits: France’s Est., 75 Pa. 220 .” After the u | 1 | 1916–1916 |
In re Marwick
neutral
1 sentence1863Story on Part., § 363; Collyer, §§ 924, 926, 927, in which it is stated that “ the rule (above stated) is not to be abandoned, so long as there is any joint estate, no matter how trifling,” and cites 8 Law Rep. 169 , Ware, J., In re Marwick, supra; McCulloch v. Dashiell, 1 Harr. & Gill 96; Story on Part. 380; Denney, J., in Somerset Pottery Works v. Minot, 10 Cush. 600 . | 1 | 1863–1863 |
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.