green
Positive treatment
Hot · 36 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 6×
82.2 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases ·
…hen the legislature uses . . . different words, we must . . . presume that 'it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.
at p. 1290
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.
hen the legislature uses . . . different words, we must . . . presume that 'it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.
hen the legislature uses . . . different words, we must . . . presume that 'it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Rosario, K.
hen the legislature uses . . . different words, we must . . . presume that 'it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Schmitz, W., Jr.
hether the board, county probation offices, or the agents and officers thereof, can impose conditions upon probationers that are not explicitly delineated in a trial court's sentencing and probation order
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Koger, C.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a trial court may impose conditions of probation in a generalized manner, and the board or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court's conditions of pro…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Com. v. Luke, B.
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he board and its agents may impose conditions of supervision that are germane to, elaborate on, or interpret any conditions of probation that are imposed by the trial court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Madsen, D.
See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(b); Shires, 240 A.3d at 978 (discussing Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Steets, K., Aplt. v. Celebration Fireworks (WCAB)
And, even then, the specific loss benefits were scheduled to be paid in installments over the course of about sixteen years. 19 77 P.S. § 541. 20 Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (“[W]hen the legislature uses two different words, we must also presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” (cleaned up)). 21 77 P.S. § 541. [J-88-2024] [MO: Donohue, J.] - 8 limited; it applies regardless of the claimant’s cause of death and regardless of whether the claimant had any qualifying dependents.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Brashear, J.
“Thus, when the legislature uses two different words, we must . . . presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (some punctuation).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Castaneira, R.
On the other hand, conditions of supervision are governed by the Prisons and Parole Code, which directs the “[PBPP] and its agents to establish uniform standards for the supervision of probationers under its authority, and further to implement those standards and conditions.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1291 (Pa. 2012) (citing 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6131(a)(5)(ii) and 6151).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stewart, D.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1291 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, B.
(2×)
In Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012), a case pre-dating Foster, our Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between the Board’s regulatory authority set forth in the Prison and Parole Code, specifically 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6131 and 6151, and the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence as set forth in 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 9751, 9754 and 9771.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Prince, A.
(2×)
This would, of course, interfere with a court’s well-established sentencing authority.” Id. at 1291.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Campbell, J.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Law on Probation Department’s Conditions of Supervision We first consider the relevant law: Our Supreme Court has distinguished between “conditions of probation,” which are imposed by a trial court, and “conditions of supervision,” which are imposed by the Board and its agents. [Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Pa. 2012).] The Sentencing Code permits trial courts to set forth “reasonable conditions authorized by [former subsection 9754(c)8] as it deems necessary to insure or assist the defendant in leading a law- abiding life.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b). [Former subsec…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HTR Restaurants, Aplt. v. Erie Insurance
“Thus, when the legislature uses two different words, we must . . . presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up). 63 436 S.W.3d at 763 . 64 Id.; see also United States v. Hill, 776 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tambellini, J., Aplt. v. Erie Insurance
“Thus, when the legislature uses two different words, we must . . . presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up). 63 436 S.W.3d at 763 . 64 Id.; see also United States v. Hill, 776 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tambellini, J. v. Erie Insurance, Aplt.
“Thus, when the legislature uses two different words, we must . . . presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up). 63 436 S.W.3d at 763 . 64 Id.; see also United States v. Hill, 776 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
HTR Restaurants v. Erie Insurance, Aplt.
“Thus, when the legislature uses two different words, we must . . . presume that it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (cleaned up). 63 436 S.W.3d at 763 . 64 Id.; see also United States v. Hill, 776 Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Clickett, A.
(2×)
Notably, [o]ur Supreme Court has distinguished between “conditions of probation,” which are imposed by a trial court, and “conditions of supervision,” which are imposed by the [Pennsylvania] Board [of Probation and Parole] and its agents. [Commonwealth v. Elliott, … 50 A.3d 1284, 1291-92 ([Pa.] 2012).4] The Sentencing Code permits trial courts to set forth “reasonable conditions authorized by subsection (c) of this section as it deems necessary to insure or assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Synthes USA HQ v. Commonwealth, Aplt.
As this Court has recognized, and commonsense dictates, “when the legislature uses . . . different words, we must . . . presume that ‘it must have meant for the words to have separate meanings.’” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012), quoting Drabic v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 906 A.2d 1153, 1157 (Pa. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dixon, W.
(2×)
Specific conditions of probation must be imposed by the court in its sentence of probation, not by the probation department. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9754(b) (in imposing probation, “[t]he court shall attach reasonable conditions authorized by section 9763 (relating to conditions of probation) as it deems necessary to ensure or assist the defendant in leading a law-abiding life”); Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1291 (Pa. 2012); Koger, 255 A.3d at 1291 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mathews, C.
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Early, M.
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Battaglia, M.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
While only a court may impose the terms of probation, the office of probation “may impose conditions of supervision that are germane to, elaborate on, or interpret any conditions of probation that are imposed by the trial court.” Elliott, 50 A.3d at 1292 (Pa. 2012). “[A] trial court may impose conditions of probation in a generalized manner, and the [office of probation] may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.” Id.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Gaiski, S.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. at 13, citing Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Reavis, A.
Commonwealth v. Shires, 240 A.3d 974, 978 (Pa.Super. 2020) (citing Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2012)). -9- J-E02003-20 unworthy of probation.” Wendowski at 630 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Obrien, B.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
As our Supreme Court noted in Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012), there are conditions of probation in § 9754 and § 9771 of the Sentencing Code, which a trial court imposes.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shires, D., II
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2012).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shires, D., II
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1288 (Pa. 2012).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
PA Dept. of L & I v. C. Darlington
Our Supreme Court has repeatedly held that “when the legislature uses two different words, we must [] presume that it must have meant for the words to have two separate meanings.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also PECO Energy Co. v. Commonwealth, 919 A.2d 188, 191 (Pa. 2007) (“[T]he Legislature is presumed to understand that different terms mean different things.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shires, D., II
Nevertheless, in counsel’s view, the order is not relevant to this appeal because the Board may impose conditions upon probationers “that are germane to, elaborate on, or interpret any conditions of probation that are imposed by the trial court.” Id. at 16 (citing Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Foster, D., Aplt.
While this Court has recognized that probation officers may, consistent with their statutory authority, impose specific conditions of supervision pertaining to the defendant’s probation, see 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6131(a)(5)(ii), 6151, any supervision conditions imposed must be “in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012). [J-6-2019] - 4 take probation seriously and clearly is not attempting to conform to society’s expectations of its citizenry.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Smith, F.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
In Elliot, our Supreme Court analyzed the Sentencing Code in pari material with the Prisons and Parole Code and concluded: “a trial court may impose conditions of probation in a generalized manner, and the Board or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.” 50 A.3d at 1292.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lentz, R.
Under our rules of statutory construction, we must presume that “the legislature does not perform useless acts in adopting the words of a statute.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (Pa. 2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Central Westmoreland Career & Technology Center Education Ass'n, PSEA/NEA v. Penn-Trafford School District
Indeed, to the contrary, it does not refer to transferred classes at all and, instead, centers on the circumstance that a school entity assumes program “responsibility.” See generally Commonwealth v. Elliott, 616 Pa. 524, 534 , 50 A.3d 1284, 1290 (2012) (observing that when the General Assembly uses different words or phrases in a statutory provision, a presumption arises that the legislative body intended those words or phrases to have different meanings).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shoup, R.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Thus, the “[Pennsylvania] Board [of Probation and Parole] or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Anderson, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012) (footnote omitted) (holding that revocation was proper based on a violation of the Board’s condition of supervision that probationer not be within 1,000 feet of areas where primary activity involves minors as said condition derived from the trial court’s condition of probation that probationer not have unsupervised contact with minors).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mikelonis, R.
The “[Pennsylvania] Board [of Probation and Parole] or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.” Commonwealth v. Elliott, 616 Pa. 524, 536-37 , 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (2012).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Blango, C.
See Elliott, 50 A.3d at 1288 ; see also Shires, 240 A.3d at 977 .
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Blango, C.
See Elliott, 50 A.3d at 1288 ; see also Shires, 240 A.3d at 977 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Scheer, J.
See generally Commonwealth v. Elliot, 50 A.3d 1284 (Pa. - 14 - J-S05010-23 2012) (discussing the interplay of the Sentencing Code and the Prisons and Parole Code, and whether other governmental actors may impose conditions on probation not dictated by the sentencing judge).1 Relatedly, we note that, to the extent Appellant is challenging the trial court’s decision to depart from the plea bargain, which in turn authorized the Board to impose special conditions, that claim could have been pursued either on direct appeal or via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a timely PCRA petitio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Adams, P.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Elliott, 616 Pa. 524, 535-37 , 50 A.3d 1284, 1291-92 (2012) (stating probation offices are authorized to establish uniform standards for supervision of probationers, and further to implement those standards and conditions; this interpretation gives meaning to all relevant statutory provisions; in short, trial court may impose conditions of probation in generalized manner, and Board or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of trial court’s conditions of probatio…
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth, Aplt v. Irland, J (Semi-Auto Pistol)
See Commonwealth v. Elliott , 616 Pa. 524 , 533-34, 50 A.3d 1284 , 1290 (2012) (citing, inter alia , 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) ). 10 As a preliminary matter, we distinguish the civil nature of derivative contraband forfeitures that arise pursuant to Rule 588 from criminal forfeitures.
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Cobbs, L.
See Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1291 (Pa. 2012), citing 61 Pa.C.S. §§ 6131(a)(5)(ii), 6151.
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Stiscak, S.
See Elliot, 50 A.3d at 1292 a trial court may impose conditions of probat Moreover, at the guilty plea and sentencing hearing, the trial court asked Appellant if he understood N.T., 2/6/12, at 7.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Shires, D., II
See generally 61 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 6131(a)(5)(ii) (granting Board authority to establish and impose “conditions of supervision”); see also Commonwealth v. Elliott, 50 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2012) (“[A] trial court may impose conditions of probation in a generalized manner, and the Board or its agents may impose more specific conditions of supervision pertaining to that probation, so long as those supervision conditions are in furtherance of the trial court’s conditions of probation.”) (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Marqwise STRATTON
v.
Marqwise STRATTON
No. 57 EM 2012.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Aug 21, 2012.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2012, in response to the Petition for Leave to File Petition for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc, this matter is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. The trial court shall appoint new counsel to Petitioner within 90 days of this order. New counsel shall file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 30 days of appointment.