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 2011–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen2 sentences2017Express preemption occurs “where the statute includes a preemption clause, the language of which specifically bars local authorities from acting on a particular subject matter.” Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 612 Pa. 598 , 32 A.3d 587, 593 (2011). 2017Express preemption occurs “where the statute includes a preemption clause, the language of which specifically bars local authorities from acting on a particular subject matter.” Hoffman Mining Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 612 Pa. 598 , 32 A.3d 587, 593 (2011). | 4 | 5 |
Haas v. HOSGOODgreen1 sentence2013A state statute can preempt a local ordinance in three situations: 1) where the statute includes a preemption clause expressly restricting local regulation; 2) where the statute is intended to occupy the entire field and permit no local regulation; and 3) where the ordinance conflicts with the state statute either because compliance with both is impossible or because the ordinance “stands as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes of the statute.” Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 612 Pa. 598, 610-11 , 32 A.3d 587, 593-94 (2011); see also Holt’s Cigar Co. | 1 | 1 |
Holt's Cigar Co. v. City of Philadelphiagreen1 sentence2013A state statute can preempt a local ordinance in three situations: 1) where the statute includes a preemption clause expressly restricting local regulation; 2) where the statute is intended to occupy the entire field and permit no local regulation; and 3) where the ordinance conflicts with the state statute either because compliance with both is impossible or because the ordinance “stands as an obstacle to the execution of the full purposes of the statute.” Hoffman Mining Co. v. Zoning Hearing Board of Adams Township, 612 Pa. 598, 610-11 , 32 A.3d 587, 593-94 (2011); see also Holt’s Cigar Co. | 1 | 1 |
Cellucci v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2011Holt's Cigar, supra at 907 ; Huntley, 964 A.2d at 862 -63 & n. 6; Cellucci v. General Motors Corporation, 550 Pa. 407 , 706 A.2d 806, 809 (1998). 2011Holt's Cigar, supra at 907 ; Huntley, 964 A.2d at 862 -63 & n. 6; Cellucci v. General Motors Corporation, 550 Pa. 407 , 706 A.2d 806, 809 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Council of Oakmont
green
2 sentences2011Holt’s Cigar, supra at 907 ; Huntley, 964 A.2d at 862 -63 & n. 6; Cellucci v. General Motors Corporation, 550 Pa. 407 , 706 A.2d 806, 809 (1998). 2011Holt's Cigar, supra at 907 ; Huntley, 964 A.2d at 862 -63 & n. 6; Cellucci v. General Motors Corporation, 550 Pa. 407 , 706 A.2d 806, 809 (1998). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.