operative test in Pennsylvania

1999“The operative inquiry ... is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser included offenses, i.e., whether the elements of the lesser included offense are a necessary subcomponent but not a sufficient component of elements of another crime.” Anderson, 538 Pa. at 578 , 650 A.2d at 22 (citation omitted).

1999“The operative inquiry ... is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser included offenses, i.e., whether the elements of the lesser included offense are a necessary subcomponent but not a sufficient component of elements of another crime.” Anderson, 538 Pa. at 578 , 650 A.2d at 22 (citation omitted).

2024See Foxe v. Pa. Dep’t. of Corr., 214 A.3d 308 , 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa. Super. 1996)) (“The operative rule . . . is that a defendant should receive credit only once for time served before sentencing.”); Barndt v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (recognizing the law “does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.

2020This Court has held “time credit on a sentence may be granted only when it has not already been credited toward another sentence.” Bright v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 831 A.2d 775, 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); see also Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa. Super. 1996) (“The operative rule … is that a defendant should receive credit only once for time served before sentencing.”).

2003“The operative inquiry is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser-included offenses, i.e., whether the two charges constitute the same offense.” Zimmerman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953, 956 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 567 Pa. 753 , 788 A.2d 382 (2001). 8 This Court has previously applied the. doctrine of merger of related offenses to proceedings before DOT and other administrative tribunals that arise as a result of criminal convictions.

2003"The operative inquiry is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser-included offenses, i.e., whether the two charges constitute the same offense." Zimmerman v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 759 A.2d 953, 956 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 567 Pa. 753 , 788 A.2d 382 (2001). [8] This Court has previously applied the doctrine of merger of related offenses to proceedings before DOT and other administrative tribunals that arise as a result of criminal convictions.

2022See, e.g., Wicker v. Esposito, 500 Pa. 457 , 457 A.2d 1260, 1260 (1983) (per curiam); and Hamilton v. Bechtel, 441 Pa. Super. 390 , 657 A.2d 980, 981 (1995).

2022See, e.g., Wicker v. Esposito, 500 Pa. 457 , 457 A.2d 1260, 1260 (1983) (per curiam); and Hamilton v. Bechtel, 441 Pa. Super. 390 , 657 A.2d 980, 981 (1995).

2016Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super.1996) (quoting Hollawell, 604 A.2d at 726 ); see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super.2014) (noting that duplicative imposition of credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious sentencing mistake).

2003Id. at 194 (quoting Commonwealth v. Hollawell, 413 Pa.Super. 42 , 604 A.2d 723, 726 (1992)).

1994The operative inquiry here is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser included offenses, i.e., whether the elements of the lesser included offense are a necessary sub-component but not a sufficient component of elements of another crime, Commonwealth v. Williams, 521 Pa. at 561 n. 2, 559 A.2d at 28 n. 2.

1994The operative inquiry here is whether the crimes involved are greater and lesser included offenses, i.e., whether the elements of the lesser included offense are a necessary sub-component but not a sufficient component of elements of another crime, Commonwealth v. Williams, 521 Pa. at 561 n. 2, 559 A.2d at 28 n. 2.

2026Smith v. Ivy Lee Real Estate LLC, 326 A.3d 1064 , 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024).8 “In Pennsylvania, an immunity defense does not, in and of itself, entitle a litigant to appellate review of an interlocutory order.” Hammond v. Thompson, 551 A.2d 667, 668 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).

2024See Foxe v. Pa. Dep’t. of Corr., 214 A.3d 308 , 315 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa. Super. 1996)) (“The operative rule . . . is that a defendant should receive credit only once for time served before sentencing.”); Barndt v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 902 A.2d 589, 595 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (recognizing the law “does not contemplate credit for time served to be awarded twice.

2024Indeed, the Commonwealth offers that this was the same approach taken by our Court in In re J.B., 107 A.3d at 17 (finding a scientific consensus had been established that juveniles convicted of sexual crimes commit new sexual crimes at a rate “indistinguishable” from juvenile non-sexual offenders).

2023Servs., L.P., 108 A.3d 54, 62 (Pa. Super. 2015). 85 We stated the operative principle in a case involving the clergy privilege, and that principle is equally applicable to any invocation of an evidentiary privilege or other basis for withholding evidence: Exceptions to the demand for every man’s evidence are not lightly created nor expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth.

2022Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1034); Com. by Shapiro[ v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1030 (Pa. 2018)] (citing Yac[o]ub [v. Lehigh Valley - 15 - J-E03001-21 Med.

2022Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 170 A.3d 560 , 564 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1034); Com. by Shapiro[ v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010 , 1030 (Pa. 2018)] (citing Yac[o]ub [v. Lehigh Valley - 15 - J-E03001-21 Med.

2022Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 170 A.3d 560, 564 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1034); Com. by Shapiro[ v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1030 (Pa. 2018)] (citing Yac[o]ub [v. Lehigh Valley - 15 - J-E03001-21 Med.

2022Rubin v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., 170 A.3d 560 , 564 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citing Pa.R.C[iv].P. 1034); Com. by Shapiro[ v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010 , 1030 (Pa. 2018)] (citing Yac[o]ub [v. Lehigh Valley - 15 - J-E03001-21 Med.

2022See, e.g., Wicker v. Esposito, 500 Pa. 457 , 457 A.2d 1260, 1260 (1983) (per curiam); and Hamilton v. Bechtel, 441 Pa. Super. 390 , 657 A.2d 980, 981 (1995).

2022See, e.g., Wicker v. Esposito, 500 Pa. 457 , 457 A.2d 1260, 1260 (1983) (per curiam); and Hamilton v. Bechtel, 441 Pa. Super. 390 , 657 A.2d 980, 981 (1995).

2020This Court has held “time credit on a sentence may be granted only when it has not already been credited toward another sentence.” Bright v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 831 A.2d 775, 778 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); see also Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa. Super. 1996) (“The operative rule … is that a defendant should receive credit only once for time served before sentencing.”).

2019Thus, “the sentencing court was precluded from ordering credit for the period of [Foxe’s] imprisonment [on his New Sentence] while he was actively serving time on his [Original Sentence].” Taglienti v. Dep’t of Corr., 806 A.2d 988, 993 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

2017When probation is revoked on a split sentence, “a defendant [is not] automatically granted credit for time served while incarcerated on the original sentence unless the court imposes a new sentence that would result in the defendant serving time in prison in excess of the statutory maximum.” Commonwealth v. Crump, 995 A.2d 1280, 1284 (Pa. Super. 2010).

2016Commonwealth v. Merigris, 681 A.2d 194, 195 (Pa.Super.1996) (quoting Hollawell, 604 A.2d at 726 ); see also Commonwealth v. Ellsworth, 97 A.3d 1255, 1257 (Pa.Super.2014) (noting that duplicative imposition of credit for time served constitutes a patent and obvious sentencing mistake).

2002School Dist., 366 Pa. 404, 409 , 77 A.2d 403, 405 (1951), articulated the operative principle that: “Indeed it might well be considered to have occurred automatically because of the law's positive direction.” Bernitsky at 133 , 112 A.2d at 123 .

2002School Dist., 366 Pa. 404, 409 , 77 A.2d 403, 405 (1951), articulated the operative principle that: “Indeed it might well be considered to have occurred automatically because of the law's positive direction.” Bernitsky at 133 , 112 A.2d at 123 .

1995"The operative test therefore, is `whether the right party was sued but under a wrong designation, or whether a wrong person was sued and the amendment was designed to substitute another and distinct party.'" Cianchetti v. Kaylen, 241 Pa.Super. 437 , 361 A.2d 842, 844 (1976).

1995"The operative test therefore, is `whether the right party was sued but under a wrong designation, or whether a wrong person was sued and the amendment was designed to substitute another and distinct party.'" Cianchetti v. Kaylen, 241 Pa.Super. 437 , 361 A.2d 842, 844 (1976).