34 Pennsylvania opinions name it 5 courts 1929–2026 5 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. Devlingreen2 sentences2026Additionally, Article I, Section 9 of Pennsylvania’s Constitution is violated where the defendant is substantially denied an opportunity to present a defense. … Id. (citations omitted). 2024Devlin, 333 A.2d at 891 (stating, “[t]he State Constitution is violated where the defendant is substantially denied an opportunity to present a defense.”) (citation omitted); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (stating, “[w]hether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’”) (citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Marizzaldigreen2 sentences2018Id. at 253 . 2017See Marizzaldi, 814 A.2d at 251 -53 (citing in support, the Comment to Pa.R.Crim.P. 462(D), providing that a trial judge may dismiss an appeal where the judge determines that the defendant is absent without cause). | 2 | 3 |
Holmes v. South Carolinagreen2 sentences2024Devlin, 333 A.2d at 891 (stating, “[t]he State Constitution is violated where the defendant is substantially denied an opportunity to present a defense.”) (citation omitted); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006) (stating, “[w]hether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’”) (citation omitted). 2023Devlin, 333 A.2d at 891 (stating, “[t]he State Constitution is violated where the defendant is substantially denied an opportunity to present a defense.”) (citation omitted); see also Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 , 324 (2006) (stating, “[w]hether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’”) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Dollar Bank v. Swartzgreen1 sentence2018See Dollar Bank v. Swartz, 657 A.2d 1242, 1245 (Pa. 1995) (“An appellate court does not sit to review questions that were neither raised, tried, nor considered in the trial court. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Parksgreen1 sentence2002See also Parks, supra (reversing and remanding for trial where appellant alleged he did not receive notice of the rescheduled de novo hearing, and certified record supported his aver-ments). ¶ 11 For these reasons, we conclude that the judgment of sentence must be vacated, and this matter remanded to the trial court for a trial de novo. ¶ 12 Judgment of sentence vacated; case remanded. | 1 | 1 |
Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Policegreen2 sentences1996As we stated in Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461, 465 , 431 A.2d 946, 948 (1981), Adjudicatory action cannot be validly taken by any tribunal, whether judicial or administrative, except upon a hearing wherein each party has opportunity to know of the claims of his opponent, to hear the evidence introduced against him, to cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence on his own behalf, and to make argument. 1996As we stated in Callahan v. Pennsylvania State Police, 494 Pa. 461, 465 , 431 A.2d 946, 948 (1981), Adjudicatory action cannot be validly taken by any tribunal, whether judicial or administrative, except upon a hearing wherein each party has opportunity to know of the claims of his opponent, to hear the evidence introduced against him, to cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence on his own behalf, and to make argument. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Butlergreen2 sentences1991The court held that Ms. Butler should have been given an opportunity to present her claim of selective prosecution to the jury as a defense to the criminal charges. 367 Pa.Superior Ct. at 463, 533 A.2d at 110 (Superior Court, 1987). 1991The court held that Ms. Butler should have been given an opportunity to present her claim of selective prosecution to the jury as a defense to the criminal charges. 367 Pa.Superior Ct. at 463, 533 A.2d at 110 (Superior Court, 1987). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Contakosgreen2 sentences1987Commonwealth v. Contakos, 492 Pa. 465, 472 , 424 A.2d 1284, 1288 (1981). 1987Commonwealth v. Contakos, 492 Pa. 465, 472 , 424 A.2d 1284, 1288 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences1978As the United States Supreme Court articulated in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1023 (1967): The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. 1978As the United States Supreme Court articulated in Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019, 1023 (1967): The right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant’s version of the facts as well as the prosecution’s to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. | 1 | 1 |
McSorley v. Fitzgeraldgreen2 sentences1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). 1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). | 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. Barky
green
2 sentences2012In sum, contrary to Appellant's assertions, his amnesia alone "did not deny him either the effectiveness of counsel or the opportunity to present a defense." Barky, 476 Pa. at 606 , 383 A.2d at 528 . 2012In sum, contrary to Appellant's assertions, his amnesia alone "did not deny him either the effectiveness of counsel or the opportunity to present a defense." Barky, 476 Pa. at 606 , 383 A.2d at 528 . | 3 | 2012–2013 |
Commonwealth v. Jester
neutral
2 sentences1985Commonwealth v. Jester, 256 Pa. 441 , 110 A. 993 (1917). 1983Commonwealth v. Jester, 256 Pa. 441 , 100 A. 993 (1917). | 3 | 1975–1985 |
Mediq, Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2001(Steskal), 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 633 A.2d 651 (1993), the court stated that by failing to request counsel fees on the record, Ramich had denied Schatz the opportunity to present a defense by way of legal argument or countervailing evidence. 2001(Steskal), 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 633 A.2d 651 (1993), the court stated that by failing to request counsel fees on the record, Ramich had denied Schatz the opportunity to present a defense by way of legal argument or countervailing evidence. | 2 | 1999–2001 |
Commonwealth v. Mesler
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 252–53 (footnotes omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Campana
green
1 sentence2015V, XIV; Pa. Const. Art. 1 §§ 9, 10; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 109, 110; Commonwealth v. Campana, 304 A.2d 432 (Pa. 1973); 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5505? 3. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Daugherty v. WCAB (JONES & L. STEEL C.)
green
2 sentences1999Daugherty v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 97 Pa. Cmwlth. 142, 510 A.2d 147 (1986). 1999Daugherty v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.), 97 Pa. Cmwlth. 142, 510 A.2d 147 (1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
In re the Tax Claim Bureau
green
2 sentences1997Petition of Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 532 , 613 A.2d 634 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 533 Pa. 615 , 618 A.2d 404 (1992). 1997Petition of Tax Claim Bureau of Westmoreland County, 149 Pa.Cmwlth. 532 , 613 A.2d 634 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 533 Pa. 615 , 618 A.2d 404 (1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154 , 494 A.2d 1088 (1985). 1994Martin v. Johns-Manville Corp., 508 Pa. 154 , 494 A.2d 1088 (1985). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Penczkowski v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences1988In reaching this determination, we distinguish this matter from Penczkowski v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Foster-Wheeler Energy Corp. & The Hartford), 97 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 419 , 509 A.2d 964 (1986). 1988In reaching this determination, we distinguish this matter from Penczkowski v. Workmens Compensation Appeal Board (Foster-Wheeler Energy Corp. & The Hartford), 97 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 419 , 509 A.2d 964 (1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Commonwealth v. Wolfe
green
2 sentences1976Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 220 Pa.Super. 415 , 289 A.2d 153 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 219 Pa.Super. 412 , 281 A.2d 678 (1971). 1976Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 220 Pa.Super. 415 , 289 A.2d 153 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 219 Pa.Super. 412 , 281 A.2d 678 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Commonwealth v. Bryant
neutral
2 sentences1976Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 220 Pa.Super. 415 , 289 A.2d 153 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 219 Pa.Super. 412 , 281 A.2d 678 (1971). 1976Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 220 Pa.Super. 415 , 289 A.2d 153 (1972); Commonwealth v. Bryant, 219 Pa.Super. 412 , 281 A.2d 678 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh
green
2 sentences1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). 1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority
green
2 sentences1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). 1974See McSorley v. Fitzgerald, 359 Pa. 264 , 59 A.2d 142 (1948); Belovsky v. Redevelopment Auth., 357 Pa. 329 , 54 A.2d 277 (1947); Ormsby Land Co. v. Pittsburgh, 276 Pa. 68 , 119 A. 730 (1923). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Minetola v. Samacicio
green
2 sentences1964In support of this position the appellant cites Minetola v. Samacicio, 399 Pa. 351 , 160 A. 2d 546 (1960). 1964In support of this position the appellant cites Minetola v. Samacicio, 399 Pa. 351 , 160 A. 2d 546 (1960). | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Vaughn v. Love
green
2 sentences1960NOTES [*] Italics throughout, ours. [*] Permitting such testimony did not conflict with the rule enunciated in Vaughn v. Love, 324 Pa. 276 , 188 A. 299 , that in the absence of fraud a sheriff's return, full and complete on its face, is conclusive and cannot be set aside on extrinsic evidence, since appellant was not attempting to set aside the service and oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, but sought an opportunity to present a defense on the merits. [**] Appellant's mother, Mrs. Samacicio, at whose residence the service of the complaint was made on February 20, 1959, testifi 1960NOTES [*] Italics throughout, ours. [*] Permitting such testimony did not conflict with the rule enunciated in Vaughn v. Love, 324 Pa. 276 , 188 A. 299 , that in the absence of fraud a sheriff's return, full and complete on its face, is conclusive and cannot be set aside on extrinsic evidence, since appellant was not attempting to set aside the service and oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, but sought an opportunity to present a defense on the merits. [**] Appellant's mother, Mrs. Samacicio, at whose residence the service of the complaint was made on February 20, 1959, testifi | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Commonwealth v. DeBaldo
green
1 sentence1955It seems clear that, in order to be appealable, a decision must be one which possesses a certain degree of finality and- which operates directly to affect the rights of property owners.” ■ • • Counsel argued, however, that if the board did not have jurisdiction in this case, appellant never will have the opportunity to present his defense of nonconforming use in any summary ■ proceedings brought against him for alleged violations, ■ citing Commonwealth v. DeBaldo, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 363 . | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Kauffman v. Reese
neutral
1 sentence1930Of course, where a judgment is obtained by extrinsic fraud (of which there is here no suggestion), the term rule above stated has no application: McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co., 267 Pa. 527 ; Kauffman v. Reese, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 601 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co.
green
1 sentence1930Of course, where a judgment is obtained by extrinsic fraud (of which there is here no suggestion), the term rule above stated has no application: McEvoy v. Quaker City Cab Co., 267 Pa. 527 ; Kauffman v. Reese, 77 Pa. Superior Ct. 601 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Franklin v. South Carolina
green
2 sentences1929It would take an extreme case to make the action of the trial court, in refusing a continuance, a denial of due process of law: Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161 , 54 L. 1929It would take an extreme case to make the action of the trial court, in refusing a continuance, a denial of due process of law: Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161 , 54 L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.