green
Positive treatment
Hot · 57 in 5y
12.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Rae, C.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (explaining that weight of evidence is exclusively for finder of fact; appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of fact-finder).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Irwin, J.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435 , 832 A.2d 403 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (holding that weight of evidence is exclusively for finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of evidence and to determine credibility of witnesses).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Rondon Villegas, S.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S. Ct. 2906 , 159 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Henderson, J.
See Commonwealth v. Burton, 973 A.2d 428 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc) (allowing for immediate review under these circumstances). -2 J -S26023-19 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (most internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Johnson, B.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (stating: where trial court has ruled on weight claim, appellate court’s role is limited to whether trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on weight claim).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Kent, S.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (stating where trial court has ruled on weight claim, appellate court’s review is limited to whether trial court palpably abused its discretion in ruling on weight claim).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Crepps, W.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cuevas
See State v. Dilts, 336 Or 158, 161-62 , 82 P3d 593 (2003) (describing sentencing guideline rules), vac’d and rem’d on other grounds, Dilts v. Oregon, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Cuevas
(2×)
See State v. Dilts, 336 Or 158, 161-62 , 82 P3d 593 (2003) (describing sentencing guideline rules), vac’d and rent’d on other grounds, Dilts v. Oregon, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ingram, Q.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Berry, W.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435 , 832 A.2d 403 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (explaining weight of evidence is exclusively for finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of evidence and to determine credibility of witnesses; this Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of fact-finder and may reverse verdict only if it is so contrary to evidence as to shock one’s sense of justice). -3- J-S24009-15 established occupant of home, Ms. Brown, heard Appellant and two cohorts attempting to gain entry to house through kitche…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Kerr, D.
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 -7- J-S01032- 15 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (explaining weight of evidence is exclusively for finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses; appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of finder of fact).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Thompson
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003) (citations omitted) (stating, “[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact who is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses[ ]”), cert. denied, Champney v. Pennsylvania, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004). “[T]he evidence at trial need not preclude every possibility of innocence, and the fact-finder is free to resolve any doubts regarding a defendant’s guilt unless the evidence is so weak and inconclusive that as a ma…
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Orie
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Ruffin
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 457 , 832 A.2d 403, 416 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
State v. LOPEZ-DANIEL
See Dilts v. Oregon, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Rabold
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Cruz
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 444 , 832 A.2d 403, 408 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004). ¶ 13 As an appellate court, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the finder of fact.
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Einhorn
See Commonwealth v. Champney, 574 Pa. 435, 456 , 832 A.2d 403, 415-416 (2003), cert. denied, 542 U.S. 939 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 816 (2004) (noting that Smith does not bind Pennsylvania courts and declining to extend use immunity to a defense witness where appellant failed to demonstrate that such testimony was clearly exculpatory). ¶ 40 However, even if the holding in Smith were binding precedent in this jurisdiction, Einhorn’s claim would still fail.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Warren
See State v. Dilts, 179 Or App 238, 244 , 39 P3d 276 (2002), aff'd, 336 Or 158, 180 , 82 P3d 595 (2003), vac’d and rent’d on other grounds, 542 US _ , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Moussaoui
See United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 492 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2906 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui, A/K/A Shaqil, A/K/A Abu Khalid Al Sahrawi, Center for National Security Studies, Amicus Supporting
(2×)
See United States v. Wills, 346 F.3d 476, 492 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2906 , ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Davilla
See State v. Gaines, 346 Or 160, 171-72 , 206 P3d 1042 (2009) (explaining statutory construction methodology); see also State v. Dilts, 336 Or 158, 162 , 82 P3d 593 (2003), vac’d and rent’d sub nom Dilts v. Oregon, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004) (sentencing guidelines “have the authority of statutory law”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lafferty
See also Dilts v. Oregon, 542 U.S. 934 , 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 809 (2004) (applying Blakely to the Oregon sentencing guidelines).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lafferty
See also Dilts v. Oregon, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004) (applying Blakely to the Oregon sentencing guidelines).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Ice
(2×)
Compare State v. Dilts, 336 Or 158 , 82 P3d 593 (2003), vac’d and rem’d, 542 US 934 , 124 S Ct 2906 , 159 L Ed 2d 809 (2004) (holding that Apprendi did not apply to departure sentences), with State v. Dilts, 337 Or 645 , 103 P3d 95 (2004) (holding, on remand in light of Blakely, that Apprendi applies to departure sentences).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John T. Martin v. Edward Perez
Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 400-01 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 , 123 S.Ct. 2607 , 156 L.Ed.2d 627 (2003); see also United States v. Laton, 352 F.3d 286, 290 (6th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2906 , 159 L.Ed.2d 812 (2004) (reviewing de novo the determination of whether property affects interstate commerce because it is a mixed question of law and fact).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Perez
Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 400-01 (6th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 941 (2003); see also United States v. Laton, 352 F.3d 286, 290 (6th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 2906 (2004) (reviewing de novo the determination of whether property affects interstate commerce because it is a mixed question of law and fact).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Laton
v.
United States
v.
United States
03-1266.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 28, 2004.
Published
LATON
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 03-1266.
Supreme Court of United States.
June 28, 2004.
1
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 352 F. 3d 286.