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 2002–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gair v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2024See Gair, 948 A.2d at 889 ; Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 . ______________________________ LORI A. DUMAS, Judge 8 The Board had confined its arguments to an erroneous interpretation of the custodial exception; it does not argue on appeal that the hearing was timely held within 120 days of receiving official verification of Petitioner’s conviction. | 1 | 1 |
Estate of: I. Wilner Appeal of: Baker, L.green1 sentence2018Again, we turn to the Statutory Construction Act to determine the meaning of “in custody.” “Words and phrases shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage[.]” 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903; see Estate of Wilner, 142 A.3d 796, 802 (Pa. 2016) (citation omitted) (words and phrases in a statute are given their ordinary meaning). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Caceresgreen2 sentences2002See generally United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-50 , 99 S.Ct. 1465, 1470 , 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979) (declining to suppress evidence based upon a violation of an Internal Revenue Service regulation involving one-party consent surveillance). 13 In the absence of statutory language warranting a contrary result, we decline to read a specific requirement for transfer of recorded evidence into Section 5704(2)(ii), particularly when such omission apparently results from deliberate legislative decision. 2002See generally United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741, 749-50 , 99 S.Ct. 1465, 1470 , 59 L.Ed.2d 733 (1979) (declining to suppress evidence based upon a violation of an Internal Revenue Service regulation involving one-party consent surveillance). 13 In the absence of statutory language warranting a contrary result, we decline to read a specific requirement for transfer of recorded evidence into Section 5704(2)(ii), particularly when such omission apparently results from deliberate legislative decision. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Donahuegreen2 sentences2002The plain language of Section 5721.1(e) limits the availability of remedies to those grounds specifically enumerated, see generally Commonwealth v. Donahue, 428 Pa.Super. 259, 278-79 , 630 A.2d 1238, 1248-49 (1993), among which neither the custodial requirement nor the policy of the district attorney’s office respecting the timing of the transfer of recorded evidence is included. 12 Moreover, while judicial enforcement of a regulation or policy governing the conduct of a criminal investigation may be appropriate where compliance is mandated either by a statute or as a matter of constitutional 2002The plain language of Section 5721.1(e) limits the availability of remedies to those grounds specifically enumerated, see generally Commonwealth v. Donahue, 428 Pa.Super. 259, 278-79 , 630 A.2d 1238, 1248-49 (1993), among which neither the custodial requirement nor the policy of the district attorney’s office respecting the timing of the transfer of recorded evidence is included. 12 Moreover, while judicial enforcement of a regulation or policy governing the conduct of a criminal investigation may be appropriate where compliance is mandated either by a statute or as a matter of constitutional | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Trigg, M. v. Children's Hospital of Pgh., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2025We address Father’s first three issues together, beginning with the question of whether he properly preserved his challenges to the court’s consideration of the Biopharma Institute Pamphlet. 3 “The issue of waiver presents a question of law, and, as such, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Trigg v. Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, 229 A.3d 260 , 269 (Pa. 2020) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Brown v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
green
1 sentence2024See Gair, 948 A.2d at 889 ; Brown, 184 A.3d at 1025 . ______________________________ LORI A. DUMAS, Judge 8 The Board had confined its arguments to an erroneous interpretation of the custodial exception; it does not argue on appeal that the hearing was timely held within 120 days of receiving official verification of Petitioner’s conviction. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Knoll v. Butler
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.