6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1884–1988 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 |
|---|---|---|
Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences1988See Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., 504 Pa. 218 , 470 A.2d 958 (1983). 1988See Freeze v. Donegal Mutual Insurance Co., 504 Pa. 218 , 470 A.2d 958 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Albert v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'ngreen2 sentences1985Health & Accident Ass’n, Omaha, 350 Pa. 268, 271-272 , 38 A.2d 321, 322-323 (1944) (Emphasis added): We do not interpret the[ ] cases as holding that under insurance provisions such as [we have here] we are not interpreting continuous confinement “within doors” [a]s a sine qua non of the recovery of a claim under the policy. 1985Health & Accident Ass’n, Omaha, 350 Pa. 268, 271-272 , 38 A.2d 321, 322-323 (1944) (Emphasis added): We do not interpret the[ ] cases as holding that under insurance provisions such as [we have here] we are not interpreting continuous confinement “within doors” [a]s a sine qua non of the recovery of a claim under the policy. | 1 | 1 |
Omslaer v. Pittsburg & Birmingham Traction Co.green1 sentence1913See also Omslaer v. Traction Co., 168 Pa. 519 ; Smith v. Traction Co., 187 Pa. 110 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Prutzman v. Armstrong
green
2 sentences1980He did have a claim against Hawkeye for uninsured motorist coverage, and he did make a recovery on that claim, but it was not “also a covered claim” because it did not result from Granite’s insolvency. *226 The way the second sentence of § 503(a) works may be seen by reference to Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill.App.3d 237 , 10 Ill.Dec. 81 , 367 N.E.2d 469 (1977), and Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d 118 , 579 P.2d 359 (1978). 1980He did have a claim against Hawkeye for uninsured motorist coverage, and he did make a recovery on that claim, but it was not “also a covered claim” because it did not result from Granite’s insolvency. *226 The way the second sentence of § 503(a) works may be seen by reference to Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill.App.3d 237 , 10 Ill.Dec. 81 , 367 N.E.2d 469 (1977), and Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d 118 , 579 P.2d 359 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund
green
2 sentences1980He did have a claim against Hawkeye for uninsured motorist coverage, and he did make a recovery on that claim, but it was not “also a covered claim” because it did not result from Granite’s insolvency. *226 The way the second sentence of § 503(a) works may be seen by reference to Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill.App.3d 237 , 10 Ill.Dec. 81 , 367 N.E.2d 469 (1977), and Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d 118 , 579 P.2d 359 (1978). 1980He did have a claim against Hawkeye for uninsured motorist coverage, and he did make a recovery on that claim, but it was not “also a covered claim” because it did not result from Granite’s insolvency. *226 The way the second sentence of § 503(a) works may be seen by reference to Lucas v. Illinois Insurance Guaranty Fund, 52 Ill.App.3d 237 , 10 Ill.Dec. 81 , 367 N.E.2d 469 (1977), and Prutzman v. Armstrong, 90 Wash.2d 118 , 579 P.2d 359 (1978). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Csakany v. Takacs
green
1 sentence1972It states (p. 35) that, in ordering the dissolution of an attachment, a judge has “no power to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint or to weigh the chances for the plaintiff’s recovery of his claim,” citing Clime v. Gregor and Csakany v. Takacs, supra. This court must conclude, therefore, that the trial court “was without legal authority to enter its order.” Harris v. Barone, supra. This court finds that the trial court was in error in ordering the release of the garnishment. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Harris v. Barone
green
1 sentence1972It states (p. 35) that, in ordering the dissolution of an attachment, a judge has “no power to test the legal sufficiency of the complaint or to weigh the chances for the plaintiff’s recovery of his claim,” citing Clime v. Gregor and Csakany v. Takacs, supra. This court must conclude, therefore, that the trial court “was without legal authority to enter its order.” Harris v. Barone, supra. This court finds that the trial court was in error in ordering the release of the garnishment. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Hicks v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co.
neutral
1 sentence1913The plaintiff is barred from a recovery by the doctrine of Hicks v. Transit Co., 53 Pa. Superior Ct. 174 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Smith v. Electric Traction Co.
neutral
1 sentence1913See also Omslaer v. Traction Co., 168 Pa. 519 ; Smith v. Traction Co., 187 Pa. 110 . | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Kane v. Fisher
neutral
1 sentence1884And in covenant where the plaintiff declared for instalments not due as well as those that were due, and the jury expressly found for those due, the recovery was not a bar to an action for an instalment not due at the'institution of the first suit: Kane v. Fisher, 2 Watts, 246 . | 1 | 1884–1884 |
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.