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 3 courts 1969–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tileston v. Ullmangreen2 sentences1987See, e.g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 , 63 S.Ct. 493 , 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) (vicarious assertion of anothers right to life); Commonwealth v. Butler, 448 Pa. 128 , 291 A.2d 89 (1972) (assertion of another’s Fifth Amendment privilege). 1987See, e.g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 , 63 S.Ct. 493 , 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) (vicarious assertion of anothers right to life); Commonwealth v. Butler, 448 Pa. 128 , 291 A.2d 89 (1972) (assertion of another’s Fifth Amendment privilege). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Blackwell v. Com. State Ethics Com'n
green
1 sentence2020Blackwell instructs that in such circumstances, the decision did not announce a new rule of law.4 589 A.2d at 1102 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
California v. Ramos
green
2 sentences2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th 2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Maynard v. Cartwright
green
2 sentences2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th 2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Commonwealth v. McNeil
red
1 sentence2001Id. [6] See Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury's discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Godfrey v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th 2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gregg v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th 2001Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356, 362 , 108 S.Ct. 1853 , 100 L.Ed.2d 372 (1988)(channeling and limiting the jury’s discretion in imposing a death sentence is a fundamental constitutional requirement); California v. Ramos, 463 U.S. 992, 999 , 103 S.Ct. 3446 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1171 (1983)(capital sentencing procedures must constrain and guide the jury's discretion to ensure that the death penalty is not meted out arbitrarily and capriciously); Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U.S. 420, 428 , 100 S.Ct. 1759 , 64 L.Ed.2d 398 (1980) (states must channel the jury's discretion by clear and objective standards th | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bouchard Transportation Co. Inc. v. The Tug "Ocean Prince"
green
1 sentence1993United States v. One Tintoretto Painting, 691 F.2d 609 (2d Cir. 1982). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Commonwealth v. Butler
green
2 sentences1987See, e.g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 , 63 S.Ct. 493 , 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) (vicarious assertion of anothers right to life); Commonwealth v. Butler, 448 Pa. 128 , 291 A.2d 89 (1972) (assertion of another’s Fifth Amendment privilege). 1987See, e.g., Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44 , 63 S.Ct. 493 , 87 L.Ed. 603 (1943) (vicarious assertion of anothers right to life); Commonwealth v. Butler, 448 Pa. 128 , 291 A.2d 89 (1972) (assertion of another’s Fifth Amendment privilege). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wilson Et Ux. v. Philadelphia
green
2 sentences1969While taxation is not a matter of exact science and perfect uniformity and absolute equality in taxation can rarely ever be attained (Wilson v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 350, 352 , 198 A. 893 ), the imposition of taxes which are to a substantial degree unequal in their operation or effect upon similar kinds of business or property, or upon persons in the same classification, is prohibited: ...” Plaintiffs fail to show that the fundamental constitutional principle quoted prohibits the Legislature from enacting the tax in question. 1969While taxation is not a matter of exact science and perfect uniformity and absolute equality in taxation can rarely ever be attained (Wilson v. Philadelphia, 330 Pa. 350, 352 , 198 A. 893 ), the imposition of taxes which are to a substantial degree unequal in their operation or effect upon similar kinds of business or property, or upon persons in the same classification, is prohibited: ...” Plaintiffs fail to show that the fundamental constitutional principle quoted prohibits the Legislature from enacting the tax in question. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.