Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Fedorekgreen2 sentences2023Id. 2023Commonwealth v. Fedorek, 946 A.2d 93, 100 (Pa. Super. 2023) (stating, the disorderly conduct statute “is aimed at protecting the public from certain enumerated acts”). | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Gilbertgreen1 sentence2026Noise is unreasonable for purposes of Section 5503(a)(2) where it is “not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” Forrey, 108 A.3d at 898 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 674 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1996), and Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2005)). - 10 - J-S17037-26 “Ultimately, … what constitutes the [actus reus] of ‘unreasonable noise’ under the disorderly conduct statute is determined solely by the volume of the speech, not its content.” Id. (quoting Maerz, 879 A.2d at 1269 ; emphasis in | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Bertothy, J.green1 sentence2026The actus reus requirement of this offense “requires proof that a defendant’s actions or words created noise that was unreasonable.” Commonwealth v. Bertothy, 307 A.3d 776, 781 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Maerzgreen2 sentences2026Noise is unreasonable for purposes of Section 5503(a)(2) where it is “not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” Forrey, 108 A.3d at 898 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 674 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1996), and Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2005)). - 10 - J-S17037-26 “Ultimately, … what constitutes the [actus reus] of ‘unreasonable noise’ under the disorderly conduct statute is determined solely by the volume of the speech, not its content.” Id. (quoting Maerz, 879 A.2d at 1269 ; emphasis in 2026Noise is unreasonable for purposes of Section 5503(a)(2) where it is “not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” Forrey, 108 A.3d at 898 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 674 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1996), and Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2005)). - 10 - J-S17037-26 “Ultimately, … what constitutes the [actus reus] of ‘unreasonable noise’ under the disorderly conduct statute is determined solely by the volume of the speech, not its content.” Id. (quoting Maerz, 879 A.2d at 1269 ; emphasis in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Forrey
green
1 sentence2026Noise is unreasonable for purposes of Section 5503(a)(2) where it is “not fitting or proper in respect to the conventional standards of organized society or a legally constituted community.” Forrey, 108 A.3d at 898 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gilbert, 674 A.2d 284, 287 (Pa. Super. 1996), and Commonwealth v. Maerz, 879 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Pa. Super. 2005)). - 10 - J-S17037-26 “Ultimately, … what constitutes the [actus reus] of ‘unreasonable noise’ under the disorderly conduct statute is determined solely by the volume of the speech, not its content.” Id. (quoting Maerz, 879 A.2d at 1269 ; emphasis in | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Brown
green
2 sentences1979In such a case, “the facts [would] bring the offense”, Commonwealth v. Brown, supra, 346 Pa. at 200 , 29 A.2d at 797 , within both the specific provision (the provision against unlawful use of credit cards) and the general provision (the provision against forgery). 1979In such a case, “the facts [would] bring the offense”, Commonwealth v. Brown, supra, 346 Pa. at 200 , 29 A.2d at 797 , within both the specific provision (the provision against unlawful use of credit cards) and the general provision (the provision against forgery). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.