core doctrine in Pennsylvania

2021See Starr, 664 A.2d at 1331 .

2015See Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 574 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995).

2024“The core of the doctrine is that a court acting at a later stage of a case should not reopen questions decided at an earlier stage by another judge of the same court or by a higher court.” Paddy, 800 A.2d at 311. - 15 - J-S02029-24 of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

2024“The core of the doctrine is that a court acting at a later stage of a case should not reopen questions decided at an earlier stage by another judge of the same court or by a higher court.” Paddy, 800 A.2d at 311 . - 15 - J-S02029-24 of the underlying question of whether the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.

2018Under Simmons, a defendant’s right to the instruction can be triggered where the prosecution raises “the specter of [the defendant’s] future dangerousness generally,” or advances “generalized arguments regarding the defendant’s future dangerousness.” Id. at 165, 171 .

2018Under Simmons , a defendant's right to the instruction can be triggered where the prosecution raises "the specter of [the defendant's] future dangerousness generally," or advances "generalized arguments regarding the defendant's future dangerousness." Id. at 165, 171 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 .

2025U.S. v. James 3 F.4th 1102, 1105 (8th Cir. 2021) (“Even if nobody knew for sure whether the suspect actually possessed a cell phone, the judges were not required to check their common sense at the door and ignore the fact that most people ‘compulsively carry cell phones with them all the time.’”); [Matter of Search of Info. that is Stored at Premises Controlled by Google LLC, 579 F.Supp.3d 62 , 78 (D.D.C. 2021)] (“The core inquiry here is probability, not certainty, and it is eminently reasonable to assume that criminals, like the rest of society, possess and use cell phones to go about their

2024Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565 , 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 , 723 (Pa. Super. 2015)).

2024Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 723 (Pa. Super. 2015)).

2024Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565 , 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711 , 723 (Pa. Super. 2015)).

2024Commonwealth v. Williams, 255 A.3d 565, 580 (Pa. Super. 2021) (citing Commonwealth v. Gonzalez, 109 A.3d 711, 723 (Pa. Super. 2015)).

2022For this proposition, he cites our decision in Appel Vending Co. v. 1601 Corp., 203 A.2d 812, 814 (Pa. Super. 1964), offering the following quotation: “an oral agreement of counsel will not be considered by the court unless it is noted by the prothonotary, or made in open court, or is admitted.” Appellant’s Brief at 11.

2020See Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (prejudice established only where but for counsel’s inaction, it is reasonably probable that outcome would have been different).

2018The core principle therein, that registration is tantamount to consent to personal jurisdiction, is incongruous with the fundamental aspect of due process that our Supreme Court first highlighted in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 319 (1945), i.e., protecting an individual’s liberty interest against being subjected to binding judgments in a foreign forum with no meaningful relationship.

2018Issues involving Bruton can arise in a variety of contexts, including severance, Gray, supra at 188 (“The trial judge, after denying Gray’s motion for a separate trial . . .”), and as evidentiary objections, Marsh, supra at 203 (“[T]he State introduced (over respondent's objection) a confession given by Williams to the police shortly after his arrest.”).

2016See also Commonwealth v. Galendez, 27 A.3d 1042 , 1046 ~a.Super. 2011) quoting Comm~nwealth v. Elmobdy, 823 A 2d .;.·:~--:- 23 that of Agent Gardner .;edible while discounting Defendant Hill's contrary testimonial claJ" Is Defendant's allegation that on ~= Ai the core of the defense's challenge to his statement's voluntariness was je him into custody Trooper IGrby allegedly 1ker Defendant Hill in the side of the head and then stood with. his full body weight otl ,e Defendant's head·.

2014The reckless-disregard-for-the-truth prong has been defined in a variety of different ways, but the core principle has remained constant: establishing reckless disregard requires a showing that the defendant made the statement with a “high degree of awareness of [its] probable falsity.” Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 (1964).

2009See, e.g., Higgins v. General Motors Corp., 287 Ark. 390 , 699 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1985)("Strictly speaking, since proof of negligence is not in issue, res ipsa loquitur has no application to strict liability; but the inferences which are the core of the doctrine remain, and are no less applicable.").

2009See, e.g., Higgins v. General Motors Corp., 287 Ark. 390 , 699 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1985)("Strictly speaking, since proof of negligence is not in issue, res ipsa loquitur has no application to strict liability; but the inferences which are the core of the doctrine remain, and are no less applicable.").

2009Commonwealth v. Mason, 456 Pa. 602 , 322 A.2d 357, 358 (1974). [11] Justice Baer suggests that the observation in Wright was dicta because that case involved a direct appeal from the imposition of a sentence of death.

2009Commonwealth v. Mason, 456 Pa. 602 , 322 A.2d 357, 358 (1974). [11] Justice Baer suggests that the observation in Wright was dicta because that case involved a direct appeal from the imposition of a sentence of death.

2009See McCann, 503 Pa. at 195 , 469 A.2d at 128 .

2009See McCann, 503 Pa. at 195 , 469 A.2d at 128 .

2004The Washington federal court in 2TheMart.com Inc. formulated a more demanding standard which requires the court to consider “whether: (1) the subpoena seeking the information was issued in good faith and not for any improper purpose, (2) the information sought relates to a core claim or defense, (3) the identifying information is directly and materially relevant to that claim or defense, and (4) information sufficient to establish or to disprove that claim or defense is unavailable from any other source.” 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp.2d at 1095, 1097 .

2004While the 2TheMart. com court agreed that the posted messages were relevant to that affirmative defense, it denied the discovery request on the basis that specific identifying information about the posters was not necessary for the corporation to successfully assert the affirmative defense. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp.2d at 1096-97 (quashing subpoena and holding that corporation had “failed to demonstrate that the identity of these internet users is directly and materially relevant to a core defense in the underlying securities litigation.”).

2000See Matos, 543 Pa. at 459 , 672 A.2d at 774 . [7] See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would "have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business"); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .

2000See Matos, 543 Pa. at 459 , 672 A.2d at 774 . [7] See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would "have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business"); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .

2000See Matos, 543 Pa. at 459 , 672 A.2d at 774 . [7] See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would "have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business"); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .

2000See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would “have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business”); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .

2000See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would “have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business”); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .

2000See also Michigan v. Chesternut, 486 U.S. 567, 569 , 108 S.Ct. 1975, 1977 , 100 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988)(characterizing as the core inquiry whether the police conduct would “have communicated to a reasonable person that he was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his business”); Lewis, 535 Pa. at 508 , 636 A.2d at 623 .