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.
29 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2025 10 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. Bennettgreen2 sentences2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer 2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Farquharsongreen2 sentences2024“The Bennett principle is applicable only where the party having the burden of proof presents testimony to support that burden which is either so unreliable or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon obviously the result of conjecture and not reason.” Commonwealth v. Farquharson, 354 A.2d 545, 550 (Pa. 1976). 2020“The Bennett principle is applicable only where the party having the burden of proof presents testimony to support that burden which is either so unreliable or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon obviously the result of conjecture and not reason.” Farguharson, 354 A.2d at 550 . | 3 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer 2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Graygreen2 sentences2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer 2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Pursellgreen2 sentences2018See Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d at 785–86 (holding claim that PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness was after-discovered fact will not establish jurisdiction under section 9545(b)(1)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611 , 752 A.2d 868 (2000) (couching claim in terms of ineffective assistance of prior counsel does not establish section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception to PCRA one-year time limitation, which exception allows untimely claims when facts were unknown); Commonwealth v. Pursell, 561 Pa. 214 , 749 A.2d 911, 916 (2000). 2018See Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d at 785–86 (holding claim that PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness was after-discovered fact will not establish jurisdiction under section 9545(b)(1)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611 , 752 A.2d 868 (2000) (couching claim in terms of ineffective assistance of prior counsel does not establish section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception to PCRA one-year time limitation, which exception allows untimely claims when facts were unknown); Commonwealth v. Pursell, 561 Pa. 214 , 749 A.2d 911, 916 (2000). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Fergusongreen2 sentences2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer 2012This Court has had ample opportunity to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a “clear continuity of interrogation.” See Commonwealth v. Jones, 478 Pa. 172, 178 , 386 A.2d 495, 498 (1978) (warnings not stale when incriminating statement given three hours after warnings, warnings were given in the same room and same warning officers conducted the interview); Commonwealth v. Gray, 473 Pa. 424, 432 , 374 A.2d 1285, 1289 (1977) (warnings not stale when given a little over two hours before incriminating statement, warnings were given in the same room and different officer | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Rigginsgreen2 sentences2000But see Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 708-09 , 334 A.2d 594, 599 (1975) (warnings were stale when given twelve hours before incriminating statement was elicited, defendant was moved to different rooms and the interview was conducted by different officers); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 451 Pa. 519, 527-28 , 304 A.2d 473, 478 (1973) (defendant should have been rewamed of his constitutional rights where statement was elicited seventeen sleepless hours after initial warnings were given, warnings were given in car and confession was given in a room in the police administration building and diff 2000But see Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 708-09 , 334 A.2d 594, 599 (1975) (warnings were stale when given twelve hours before incriminating statement was elicited, defendant was moved to different rooms and the interview was conducted by different officers); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 451 Pa. 519, 527-28 , 304 A.2d 473, 478 (1973) (defendant should have been rewamed of his constitutional rights where statement was elicited seventeen sleepless hours after initial warnings were given, warnings were given in car and confession was given in a room in the police administration building and diff | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylorgreen2 sentences2011See Gamboa-Taylor, supra at 80 , 753 A.2d at 785 (holding ineffectiveness of counsel claim generally does not constitute exception to PCRA time requirements). 2011See Gamboa-Taylor, supra at 80 , 753 A.2d at 785 (holding ineffectiveness of counsel claim generally does not constitute exception to PCRA time requirements). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2019Commonwealth v. Bennett, [ ] 303 A.2d 220 ([Pa.Super.] 1973) [(en banc)] (and cases cited therein). [The] [a]ppellant argues that the Bennett principle is applicable here. 2018Following this principle, courts of this jurisdiction have recognized that where evidence offered to support a verdict of guilt is so unreliable and/or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon pure conjecture, a jury may not be permitted to return such a finding. [ Bennett, supra]. … The Bennett principle is applicable only where the party having the burden of proof presents testimony to support that burden which is either so unreliable or contradictory as to make any verdict based thereon obviously the result of conjecture and not reason. | 1 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Scottgreen2 sentences2022Moreover, heroin use ____________________________________________ 5 In Scott, our Supreme Court explained that it “has had ample time to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a ‘clear continuity of interrogation.’” Id. at 875 . 2022Moreover, heroin use ____________________________________________ 5 In Scott, our Supreme Court explained that it “has had ample time to apply the Bennett factors in order to delineate what constitutes a ‘clear continuity of interrogation.’” Id. at 875 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 1273 . 2016With regard to Bennett’s claim that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard in assessing his claim, we note that our Court recently clarified the distinction between a newly-discovered facts exception under the PCRA and an after-discovered evidence claim: The timeliness exception set forth at Section 9545(b)(1)(ii) has often mistakenly been referred to as the “after-discovered evidence” exception. [Commonwealth v.] Bennett, [ 930 A.2d 1264, 1270 (Pa. 2007)]. | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Ravengreen1 sentence2025See id. | 1 | 1 |
Lineberger v. Wyethgreen1 sentence2022See id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Reichlegreen2 sentences2015See Reichle, 589 A.2d at 1141 . 2015See Reichle, 589 A.2d at 1141 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Widemangreen2 sentences2000But see Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 708-09 , 334 A.2d 594, 599 (1975) (warnings were stale when given twelve hours before incriminating statement was elicited, defendant was moved to different rooms and the interview was conducted by different officers); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 451 Pa. 519, 527-28 , 304 A.2d 473, 478 (1973) (defendant should have been rewamed of his constitutional rights where statement was elicited seventeen sleepless hours after initial warnings were given, warnings were given in car and confession was given in a room in the police administration building and diff 2000But see Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 708-09 , 334 A.2d 594, 599 (1975) (warnings were stale when given twelve hours before incriminating statement was elicited, defendant was moved to different rooms and the interview was conducted by different officers); Commonwealth v. Riggins, 451 Pa. 519, 527-28 , 304 A.2d 473, 478 (1973) (defendant should have been rewamed of his constitutional rights where statement was elicited seventeen sleepless hours after initial warnings were given, warnings were given in car and confession was given in a room in the police administration building and diff | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Peterson
green
2 sentences2024Subsequently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Bennett exception applies to instances “where PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness per se completely forecloses review of collateral claims.” Peterson, 192 A.3d at 1130 . 2024Subsequently, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the Bennett exception applies to instances “where PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness per se completely forecloses review of collateral claims.” Peterson, 192 A.3d at 1130 . | 2 | 2023–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Bronshtein
green
2 sentences2018See Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d at 785–86 (holding claim that PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness was after-discovered fact will not establish jurisdiction under section 9545(b)(1)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611 , 752 A.2d 868 (2000) (couching claim in terms of ineffective assistance of prior counsel does not establish section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception to PCRA one-year time limitation, which exception allows untimely claims when facts were unknown); Commonwealth v. Pursell, 561 Pa. 214 , 749 A.2d 911, 916 (2000). 2018See Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d at 785–86 (holding claim that PCRA counsel's ineffectiveness was after-discovered fact will not establish jurisdiction under section 9545(b)(1)(ii)); Commonwealth v. Bronshtein, 561 Pa. 611 , 752 A.2d 868 (2000) (couching claim in terms of ineffective assistance of prior counsel does not establish section 9545(b)(1)(ii) exception to PCRA one-year time limitation, which exception allows untimely claims when facts were unknown); Commonwealth v. Pursell, 561 Pa. 214 , 749 A.2d 911, 916 (2000). | 2 | 2011–2018 |
Navarro, R. v. PA State Police, Aplt.
green
1 sentence2023Bennett relies on Navarro v. Pennsylvania State Police, 212 A.3d 26 (Pa. 2019), in support. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Williamson
green
1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Williamson, 21 A.3d 236 , 241–42 (Pa.Super. 2011). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bennett v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
green
1 sentence2006Bennett, 634 A.2d at 779 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Kalantary v. Mention
green
1 sentence2000Most importantly, there is no indication that the trial court gave any consideration to lesser sanctions. ¶ 8 In Kalantary, supra, this Court reversed the entry of default judgment under Rule 218 against a defendant where defendant’s counsel failed to appear at a pretrial conference. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.