G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2014–2020 · 2 courts ·
…the court rendering the adult certification decision must have misapplied the law, exercised unreasonable judgment, or based its decision on ill will, bias, or prejudice.
at p. 329
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Taylor, N.
Rather, the sole purpose of a certification hearing, as established by the Juvenile Act, is to determine “if there is a prima facie case that the child committed the delinquent act alleged, the delinquent act would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, and if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the public interest would be served by the transfer of the case for criminal prosecution.” Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 329 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, N.
"An abuse of discretion is not merely an II error of judgment but involves· the misapplication or overriding of the law. or the: exercise I i of a manifestly unreasonable judgment based upon partiality, prejudice, or- ill will." ! ' 'j Thomas 67 A..3d at 843 (quoting Com. v_ Brown, 26 A,3d 485, 493 (Pa Super.2011)). ,J I Moreover, "[tjhe existence of factsin the reeord that would support a contrary result does I! not demcnstrate.an abuse of discretion." Spotti, 94 A.3d at 370 (quoting Com.. v. In re llli E.F .• 606 Pa. 73 , 995 A.2d 326, 329 (2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. I.J.-W.
“Section 6355(g) places the burden of proof upon the Commonwealth to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the public interest is served by the transfer of the case to criminal court and that a child is not amenable to treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation as a juvenile.” Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 331 (Pa. 2010) (citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6355(g)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Spotti
(2×)
Rather, “the court rendering the adult certification decision must have misapplied the law, exercised unreasonable judgment, or based its decision on ill will, bias, or prejudice.” Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 606 Pa. 73 , 995 A.2d 326, 329 (2010) (internal footnotes and citations omitted).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Samuel-Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
An abuse of discretion will be found if the certifying court’s “decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact;” the trial court must have “exercised unreasonable judgment, or based its decision on ill will, bias, or prejudice.” 622 F.3d at 290 ; In re E.F., 606 Pa. 73 , 995 A.2d 326, 329 (2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mente Chevrolet Oldsmobile, Inc. v. GMAC
In re E.F., 606 Pa. 73 , 995 A.2d 326, 332 (2010) (holding that a party “has no right to invoke equity [where] he comes before the court with unclean hands”). 4 The jury also found that at least one breach of contract claim accrued after the Forbearance Agreement was signed, and thus the agreement did not waive all of Mente’s claims.
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Batchelor, R.
See Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 329 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Santana, P.
See Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d at 326, 333 (Pa. 2010) (“It is further not the role of an appellate court to reweigh statutory factors to conclude that the seriousness of the offense and the deleterious effects suffered by the victim warrant certification.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Steadman, N.
(2×)
See Com. v. E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 333 (Pa. 2010); Sanders, 814 A.2d at 1252 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Ulysse, A.
See also Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 327 (Pa. 2010) (referring, in a juvenile delinquency case, to the trial court holding a “preliminary hearing” and determining based on evidence at the hearing that the Commonwealth had established “a prima facie case.” The court then proceeded to conduct a “certification hearing.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Interest of: A.M. Appeal of: A.M.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 6352(a)(5) (“[a]ny restitution order which remains unpaid at the time the child attains 21 years of age shall continue to be collectible under [42 Pa.C.S.A. §] 9728 (relating to collection of restitution, reparation, fees, costs, fines and penalties)”); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9728(a)(1); see also In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 332 (Pa. 2010) (holding the issue of “whether the Superior Court erred by concluding that the [Juvenile Court] abused its (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 23 - J-S15015-25 Order denying Appellant’s speedy trial claim vacated.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Edward GOODMAN, Appellant
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee
v.
PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Appellee
92 MAP 2009.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 26, 2010.
Per Curiam.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 26th day of May, 2010, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.