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 2 courts 2004–2020 0 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. Boylegreen2 sentences2019Next, we observe that our Supreme Court has “tentatively accepted the extra-judicial source doctrine, noting that it is significant if the information at the root of the recusal motion was obtained in a prior proceeding of the case, and not from any pretrial bias or personal disdain.” Druce, supra at 110 (citing Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486 , 447 A.2d 250 , 252 n. 6 (1982)). 2019Next, we observe that our Supreme Court has “tentatively accepted the extra-judicial source doctrine, noting that it is significant if the information at the root of the recusal motion was obtained in a prior proceeding of the case, and not from any pretrial bias or personal disdain.” Druce, supra at 110 (citing Commonwealth v. Boyle, 498 Pa. 486 , 447 A.2d 250 , 252 n. 6 (1982)). | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Kearneygreen2 sentences2020Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 61 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphases in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 , 110 n.3 (Pa. 2004)) (The Court explained that “[u]nder the extra-judicial source doctrine, alleged bias stemming from facts gleaned from the judicial proceeding will rarely be grounds for recusal.”) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). 2017Further, we have explained: [a] trial judge has the right if not the duty to interrogate witnesses in order to clarify a disputed issue or vague ____________________________________________ As this Court noted in Kearney, our Supreme Court has “tentatively 2 accepted the extra-judicial source doctrine, noting that it is significant if the information at the root of the recusal motion was obtained in a prior proceeding of the case, and not from any pretrial bias or personal disdain.” 92 A.3d at 61 (quoting Druce, 848 A.2d at 110 ). -8- J-A24008-17 evidence. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Mitchell Antar, in 94-5228. United States of America v. Eddie Antar, in 94-5230green2 sentences2004See United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 574 (3d Cir.1995). 2004See United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568, 574 (3d Cir. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Liteky v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 61 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphases in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 , 110 n.3 (Pa. 2004)) (The Court explained that “[u]nder the extra-judicial source doctrine, alleged bias stemming from facts gleaned from the judicial proceeding will rarely be grounds for recusal.”) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). 2019In further explanation, the Court cited with approval Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 , 114 S.Ct. 1147 , 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994). | 3 | 2014–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Druce
green
2 sentences2020Commonwealth v. Kearney, 92 A.3d 51, 61 (Pa. Super. 2014) (emphases in original) (citing Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 , 110 n.3 (Pa. 2004)) (The Court explained that “[u]nder the extra-judicial source doctrine, alleged bias stemming from facts gleaned from the judicial proceeding will rarely be grounds for recusal.”) (quoting Liteky v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 1147 (1994)). 2017Further, we have explained: [a] trial judge has the right if not the duty to interrogate witnesses in order to clarify a disputed issue or vague ____________________________________________ As this Court noted in Kearney, our Supreme Court has “tentatively 2 accepted the extra-judicial source doctrine, noting that it is significant if the information at the root of the recusal motion was obtained in a prior proceeding of the case, and not from any pretrial bias or personal disdain.” 92 A.3d at 61 (quoting Druce, 848 A.2d at 110 ). -8- J-A24008-17 evidence. | 2 | 2017–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Flor
green
1 sentence2020Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated: “[I]t is not improper for a judge to address a defendant after sentencing for the purpose of reiterating to the defendant that the punishment just imposed was well- deserved.” Flor, 998 A.2d at 642 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |