6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fairview Sch. Dist. v. COM. UNEM. COMP.green2 sentences2015Luzerne Intermediate Unit No. 18 v. Luzerne Intermediate Unit Education Association, 89 A.3d 319 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014), citing Fairview School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 539 , 454 A.2d 517, 521 (1982) (“The underlying rationale for the status quo requirement is that during the interim period between contracts, the employer may continue operations and the employee may continue working, while the parties are free to negotiate on an equal basis in good faith. 2015Luzerne Intermediate Unit No. 18 v. Luzerne Intermediate Unit Education Association, 89 A.3d 319 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014), citing Fairview School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 539 , 454 A.2d 517, 521 (1982) (“The underlying rationale for the status quo requirement is that during the interim period between contracts, the employer may continue operations and the employee may continue working, while the parties are free to negotiate on an equal basis in good faith. | 2 | 2 |
Ambrogi v. Rebergreen2 sentences2014Stated differently, “[tjhe rele vant standard requires that an injunction must address the status quo as it existed between the parties before the event that gave rise to the lawsuit, not to the situation as it existed after the alleged wrongful act but before entry of the injunction.” Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969, 979 (Pa.Super.2007). 2014Stated differently, “[t]he relevant standard requires that an injunction must address the status quo as it existed between the parties before the event that gave rise to the lawsuit, not to the situation as it existed after the alleged wrongful act but before entry of the injunction.” Ambrogi v. Reber, 932 A.2d 969, 979 (Pa. Super. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Summit Towne Centre, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mount, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025Accordingly, ABC Eastern satisfied the second prerequisite to obtain a preliminary injunction.7 Status Quo To satisfy the status quo requirement, “the party must show that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct.” Summit Towne Ctr., 828 A.2d at 1001 . 2014Restoration of Status Quo Our inquiry next turns to whether SEIU has shown that “a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2025 |
Pennsylvania State Park Officers Ass'n v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
green
1 sentence2018"The underlying rationale for the status quo requirement is that during the interim period between contracts, the employer may continue operations and the employee may continue working, while the parties are free to negotiate on an equal basis in good faith ." Pa. State Park Officers Ass'n v. Pa. Labor Relations Bd., 854 A.2d 674 , 681 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (emphasis added) (quoting Fairview Sch. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, AFT, Local 3 v. School District of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2016Fed’n of Teachers, 109 A.3d at 309 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Luzerne Intermediate Unit No. 18 v. Luzerne Intermediate Unit Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence2015Luzerne Intermediate Unit No. 18 v. Luzerne Intermediate Unit Education Association, 89 A.3d 319 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014), citing Fairview School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 539 , 454 A.2d 517, 521 (1982) (“The underlying rationale for the status quo requirement is that during the interim period between contracts, the employer may continue operations and the employee may continue working, while the parties are free to negotiate on an equal basis in good faith. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.