How do we know? Taken from the published judgment; not rewritten by the platform.
This is a decision of Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, given 1 April 1776, from Caselaw Access Project. No later decision here cites it — that does not show it is still good law.
No later authority in this platform cites this decision. That means the platform holds no subsequent treatment — not that the decision is undisturbed.
Source
- Published by
- Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab
- Source
- Caselaw Access Project
- Licence
- Open — US judicial opinions are not copyrightable (government edicts doctrine)
- Held here since
- 26 September 2026
Version
- Decided
- 1 April 1776
- Later treatment
- Not cited by any later authority here
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
Authority
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 22
- Judges
- Before Chew, Chief Justice, and Lawrence, Justice.
OCR confidence 0.443 is below 0.7. This text was read from a scan and contains transcription errors. It may be relied on for what the case decided, but must not be presented as a verbatim quotation.
first-named party
Steiner
second-named party
Fell
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Citation
- 1 U.S. 22
- Decided
- 1776-04-01
- Judges
- Before Chew, Chief Justice, and Lawrence, Justice.
- Jurisdiction
- United States — Federal → Pennsylvania
- Case type
- Not available
- Jury
- Unknown
- Current status
- No later treatment is recorded in this platform. That is not proof the decision was not appealed.
Outcome
Outcome not clearly established in available sources.
Shown: what the publisher states and what the citation graph shows. Claims, evidence, witnesses and reasoning are extracted only on request, by an AI model, and each item is checked against the paragraph it cites.
Sign in to structure this case.
Timeline
-
Decided
publisher's record
Case at a glance
- 0 Issues
- 0 Claims & positions
- 0 Evidence items
- 0 Witnesses
- 0 Authorities
- 2 Judgment paragraphs
- 0 Later citations
Counts describe what was recorded; they say nothing about how strong a side's case was.
Legal issues
No issues recorded.
Arguments
Not available.
Evidence
Not available.
Witnesses
Not available.
Decision
Outcome not clearly established in available sources.
Remedies
No remedy extracted.
Appeal
Current status: No later treatment is recorded in this platform. That is not proof the decision was not appealed.
Sources
- Official text: 1 U.S. 22 ↗ — the judgment on this platform
- Citation graph: 0 authorities cited, 0 later citations.
Method
Items marked 🟢 were stated by the publisher or extracted with a quotation the platform found word for word in the cited paragraph. 🔵 comes from the citation graph. 🟡 was extracted by an AI model with a paragraph reference whose wording could not be confirmed — read the paragraph. Allegations, responses, findings and orders are kept apart and never merged into "what happened".
AI summary
Choose who the summary is for. Every statement links to the paragraph it comes from — the summary is never the only way to read this.
Ask LawTAG
Sign in to ask your team's LawTAGs about this page.
In the news
News coverage of “Steiner v. Fell” in the last three months, from GDELT.