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 1928–2026 2 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. Browngreen2 sentences2026When the trial court provides cautionary instructions to the jury after the defense raises a motion for a mistrial, “[t]he law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of the court.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 971 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted). 2024When the trial court provides cautionary instructions to the jury after the defense raises a motion for a mistrial, “[t]he law presumes that the jury will follow the instructions of the court.” Commonwealth v. Brown, 786 A.2d 961, 971 (Pa. 2001) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Hoover, J.green2 sentences2017Although the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged that reasonable minds could differ as to the admissibility of this evidence, it “defer[red] to the veteran trial judge who was better able to decide the evidence’s effect on the jury after hearing and observing the many witnesses throughout the lengthy trial.” Johns, 725 P.2d at 326 ; accord Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 610 , 107 A.3d 723, 729 (2014) (stressing the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applied by appellate courts on review of trial-court evidentiary rulings, per which such determinations cannot be disturbed “‘merely bec 2017Although the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged that reasonable minds could differ as to the admissibility of this evidence, it “defer[red] to the veteran trial judge who was better able to decide the evidence’s effect on the jury after hearing and observing the many witnesses throughout the lengthy trial.” Johns, 725 P.2d at 326 ; accord Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 610 , 107 A.3d 723, 729 (2014) (stressing the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applied by appellate courts on review of trial-court evidentiary rulings, per which such determinations cannot be disturbed “‘merely bec | 2 | 2 |
Cramer v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1928If the negligence was that of the engineer or fireman or of both in failing to observe or heed the signals, then it was that of fellow servants and the defense of the negligence of a fellow servant is not available to defendant under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the first section of which has the effect of abolishing in this class of cases the common law rule that exempted the employer from responsibility for the negligence of a fellow employee of the plaintiff: Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 *325 U. S. 1, 49; 38 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Douglas v. People
green
2 sentences2017And in Douglas v. People, 969 P.2d 1201 (Colo. 1998), the Colorado Supreme Court sanctioned the admission of evidence that a defendant had previously threatened his girlfriend and a neighbor with firearms, in a case in which he had been charged with menacing with a firearm and claimed self defense. 2017And in Douglas v. People, 969 P.2d 1201 (Colo. 1998), the Colorado Supreme Court sanctioned the admission of evidence that a defendant had previously threatened his girlfriend and a neighbor with firearms, in a case in which he had been charged with (…continued) extreme anger, and threatened the woman with a gun when she refused to do his bidding.” Spector, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 73 . [J-81-2016][M.O. – Dougherty, J.] - 11 menacing with a firearm and claimed self defense. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Johns
green
2 sentences2017Although the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged that reasonable minds could differ as to the admissibility of this evidence, it “defer[red] to the veteran trial judge who was better able to decide the evidence’s effect on the jury after hearing and observing the many witnesses throughout the lengthy trial.” Johns, 725 P.2d at 326 ; accord Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 610 , 107 A.3d 723, 729 (2014) (stressing the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applied by appellate courts on review of trial-court evidentiary rulings, per which such determinations cannot be disturbed “ ‘merely be 2017Although the Oregon Supreme Court acknowledged that reasonable minds could differ as to the admissibility of this evidence, it “defer[red] to the veteran trial judge who was better able to decide the evidence’s effect on the jury after hearing and observing the many witnesses throughout the lengthy trial.” Johns, 725 P.2d at 326 ; accord Commonwealth v. Hoover, 630 Pa. 599, 610 , 107 A.3d 723, 729 (2014) (stressing the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard applied by appellate courts on review of trial-court evidentiary rulings, per which such determinations cannot be disturbed “‘merely bec | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Spector
green
1 sentence2017And in Douglas v. People, 969 P.2d 1201 (Colo. 1998), the Colorado Supreme Court sanctioned the admission of evidence that a defendant had previously threatened his girlfriend and a neighbor with firearms, in a case in which he had been charged with (…continued) extreme anger, and threatened the woman with a gun when she refused to do his bidding.” Spector, 128 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 73 . [J-81-2016][M.O. – Dougherty, J.] - 11 menacing with a firearm and claimed self defense. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Seaboard Air Line Railway v. Horton
green
1 sentence1928If the negligence was that of the engineer or fireman or of both in failing to observe or heed the signals, then it was that of fellow servants and the defense of the negligence of a fellow servant is not available to defendant under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, the first section of which has the effect of abolishing in this class of cases the common law rule that exempted the employer from responsibility for the negligence of a fellow employee of the plaintiff: Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Horton, 233 U. S. 492 ; Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 *325 U. S. 1, 49; 38 L. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
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.