Commonwealth v. Tiffany (2007)
green
· 29 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Egolf v. Witmer (2008)
Since Heinbaugh , it appears that "[a]ll of the reported Pennsylvania cases on open lewdness involved public masturbation or public displays of genitalia." Commonwealth v. Williams, 394 Pa.Super. 90 , 574 A.2d 1161, 1163 (Pa.Super.1990). [16] Nevertheless, "lewd" acts remain interpreted as "sexuality or nudity in public." Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 510-11 (Pa.Super.2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Fenton, 750 A.2d 863, 866 (Pa.Super.2000)).
green
Com. v. Vanderslice, S. (2021)
Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Savich, 716 A.2d 1251, 1256 (Pa. Super. 1987)).
citing Commonwealth v. Savich, 716 A.2d 1251, 1256 (Pa. Super. 1987)
green
Commonwealth v. Davidson (2007)
This fact clearly satisfies the `prohibited sexual act' definition contained in [Section 6312(a)]." Trial Ct. Op. at 13. [11] Utilizing the statutory definition of "prohibited sexual act," the court properly focused on the content of the images in making its determination. [12] In Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa.Super.2007), alloc. filed June 25, 2007, 498-99 MAL 2007, the Superior Court aptly noted that, "`[c]ommon sense and human experience' dictate that the…
green
Com. v. Boyd, S. (2024)
“For purposes of Section 3127, it is sufficient for the Commonwealth to show that [an appellant] knew or should have known that his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.” Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007), citing Commonwealth v. King, 434 A.2d 1294, 1299 (Pa. Super. 1981).
green
Com. v. Rudolf, G. (2021)
Instead, we note, “it is sufficient for the Commonwealth to show that Appellant knew or should have known that his conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.” Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007).
green
Com. v. Hubbard, J. (2017)
Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007).
green
Com. v. Montgomery, J. (2017)
Our Superior Court has made it very clear that "It is without question that when addressing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must view the facts in a light favorable to the Commonwealth, as verdict winner." Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 510 (Pa. Super. 2007).
green
Com. v. Lawrence, R. (2016)
Commonwealth . ..... ::~~:,~~· v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Commonwealth v. King, 434 A.2d 1294, 1299 (Pa. Super. 1981)).
citing Commonwealth v. King, 434 A.2d 1294, 1299 (Pa. Super. 1981)
green
Com. v. Lewis, T. (2016)
Section 5901 pertains to conduct that: “1) involves public nudity or public sexuality, and 2) represents such a gross departure from accepted community standards as to rise to the level of criminal liability.” Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 511 (Pa. Super. 2007) (quotations and citation omitted).
quotations and citation omitted
green
Commonwealth v. Hawkins (2012)
Generally, our standard of review when addressing a challenge to a trial court’s denial of suppression is “whether the factual findings are supported by the record and whether the legal conclusions drawn from these facts are correct.” Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 506 (Pa.Super.2007) (citations omitted), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 706 , 948 A.2d 804 (2008).
green
Com. v. Castello, A. (2025)
See Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503 , 509 n.21 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citations omitted) (claims not raised in suppression motion are waived on appeal).
citations omitted
green
Com. v. Winter, B. (2025)
Id. at 213-14 ; see also Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa.Super. 2007) (affirming factfinder’s determination that photographs at issue depicted nudity for the sole purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification).
affirming factfinder’s determination that photographs at issue depicted nudity for the sole purpose of sexual stimulation or gratification
green
Com. v. Gates, R. (2021)
See id.; accord Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa. Super. 2007) (affirming fact-finder’s determination that photographs at issue depicted nudity for sexual stimulation or gratification). ____________________________________________ 16 The Davidson Court was interpreting former Section 6312(a), which was subsequently replaced by the substantively identical Section 6312(g). - 24 - J-A18022-21 Instantly, Appellant overlooks that Section 6312’s definition of “sexual…
affirming fact-finder’s determination that photographs at issue depicted nudity for sexual stimulation or gratification
green
Com. v. Dorneman, T. (2019)
See Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 510-511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (holding that the Commonwealth is not required to prove that “affront or alarm” was actually caused, rather just that the defendant knew or should have known it was likely to be caused).
holding that the Commonwealth is not required to prove that “affront or alarm” was actually caused, rather just that the defendant knew or should have known it was likely to be caused
green
Com. v. Spriggs, S. (2015)
See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Tiffany, 926 A.2d 503, 512 (Pa.Super.2007) (claim raised in 1925(b) statement waived when Appellant did not raise it in appellate brief). -2- J-S56025-15 advantageous defense for witness; (3) there was no conflict based on prior dual representation because there was no actual conflict of interest because no indication counsel possessed confidential information which affected his ability to represent Appellant or that his loyalties were divided, (4)…