Kelly L. Makowka v.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that when a state supreme court has not ruled on the precise issue presented, we predict how that tribunal would rule
• disagreeing with controlling state intermediate appellate case because “it is internally inconsistent, it conflicts with the text and structure of [the statute], and it contravenes a fundamental precept of Pennsylvania law.”
• disagreeing with controlling state intermediate appellate case because “it is internally inconsistent, it conflicts with the text and structure of [the statute], and it contravenes a fundamental precept of Pennsylvania law.”
• disagreeing with precedential state appellate decision because we are “not, in fact, bound by [such] a decision[,]” and “the decision’s sparse reasoning and internal 6 inconsistency” would not persuade the state supreme court
• disagreeing with precedential state appellate decision because we are “not, in fact, bound by [such] a decision[,]” and “the decision’s sparse reasoning and internal 6 inconsistency” would not persuade the state supreme court
• “State appellate decisions, however, are not controlling: ‘while we may not ignore the decision of an intermediate appellate court, we are free to reach a contrary result if, by analyzing other persuasive data, we predict that the State Supreme Court would hold otherwise.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).