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 2011–2024 1 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. Felmleegreen1 sentence2024See Allen, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa.Super. 2003) (en banc) (stating substantial question is raised where appellant alleges sentencing court imposed aggravated range sentence without adequately considering mitigating factors). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Allengreen1 sentence2024See Allen, supra. See also Commonwealth v. Felmlee, 828 A.2d 1105, 1107 (Pa.Super. 2003) (en banc) (stating substantial question is raised where appellant alleges sentencing court imposed aggravated range sentence without adequately considering mitigating factors). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Garzonegreen1 sentence2020Here, however, Clement “challenges the discretionary amount of costs the sentencing court imposed because the court relied on impermissible factors and because the amount was unsupported and excessive in light of the record.” Appellant’s Amended Brief, at 1; see id. at i (“The [t]rial [c]ourt [a]bused its [d]iscretion in [c]harging Mr. Clement with the [c]osts of the [o]ffender-[s]upervision [f]ee.”).7 Accordingly, we interpret Clement’s challenge as one attacking the court’s discretion to impose the supervision fee and not its legal authority to do so. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McNabbgreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54, 56-57 (Pa. Super. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mouzongreen2 sentences2011See Commomvealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 , 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Miller, supra. The sentencing court has broad discretion in sentencing a defendant. 2011See Commomvealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 , 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Miller, supra. The sentencing court has broad discretion in sentencing a defendant. | 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. Daniel
green
2 sentences2015While this claim has been found to raise a substantial question, Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494 (Pa. Super. 2011), Leatherby fails to expand upon this claim in the argument section of his brief. 2015While this claim has been found to raise a substantial question, Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494 (Pa.Super.2011), Leatherby fails to expand upon this claim in the argument section of his brief. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Miller
green
1 sentence2011See Commomvealth v. Mouzon, 571 Pa. 419 , 812 A.2d 617 (2002); Miller, supra. The sentencing court has broad discretion in sentencing a defendant. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.