Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., 134 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., 134 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (24 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Com. v. Pinock, K. (pasuperct, 2017-03-31)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Com. v. Pinock, K.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2017 · confidence medium
The Court granted allocator to decide: Whether, as a matter of first impression, the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision denying [petitioner’s] motion to suppress evidence where state parole agents lacked authority and subsequently reasonable suspicion to detain [petitioner] and conduct an investigative detention in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? 134 A.3d at 51. -7- J-S93021-16 coercive conditions as to constitute the functional equivalent of arrest.
discussed Cited "see" Richards v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 123 A.3d 1071, 1083-84 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal granted, 134 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2016) (finding the date on which IDS Life Insurance policy was issued occurred prior to the UTPCPL amendment and therefore the pre-amendment version of the statute controlled).
discussed Cited "see" Richards, R. v. Ameriprise Financial
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 123 A.3d 1071, 1083-84 (Pa. Super. 2015), appeal granted, 134 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2016) (finding the date on which IDS Life Insurance policy was issued occurred prior to the UTPCPL amendment and therefore the pre- amendment version of the statute controlled).
discussed Cited "see" Vinciguerra, A. v. Tunstall, G.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Yenchi v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 123 A.3d 1071, 1081 (Pa. Super 2015), appeal granted, 134 A.3d 51 (Pa. 2016); see also Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Respondent
v.
Darrin Orlando MATHIS, Petitioner
975 MAL 2015 (Granted).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Mar 30, 2016.
134 A.3d 51
Per Curiam.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:

Whether, as a matter of first impression, the Superior Court erred in affirming the trial court’s decision denying [petitioner’s] motion to suppress evidence where state parole agents lacked authority and subsequently reasonable suspicion to detain [petitioner] and conduct an investigative detention in violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

[*211] The parties are directed to separately address in their briefs the subsumed and alternate claims respecting (1) the authority of parole agents, and (2) whether reasonable suspicion existed to support a seizure and a subsequent weapons frisk.