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.
20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2026 6 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. Reevesgreen2 sentences2026Moury, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-693 (Pa. Super. 2001) (by failing to raise a specific claim regarding imposition of sentence in post- sentence motion, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to consider the claim and thus the claim was waived on appeal); Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 799 (Pa. Super. 2015) (although challenges to discretionary aspects of sentence were raised in Rule 1925(b) statement and trial court addressed them in its opinion, issues were waived because the appellant failed to raise them at sentencing or in his post-sentence mo 2022See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discretionary sentencing claim waived where, although appellant filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, the motion did not include the specific claim raised on appeal); Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-93 (Pa. Super. 2001) (by failing to raise the specific claim that the trial court failed to state reasons for its sentence on the record in a post- sentence motion, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to consider the claim and thus the claim was waived on appeal). | 7 | 7 |
In Re Fc IIIgreen2 sentences2021III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010)) (finding appellant’s constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the trial court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule on them); see also Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“[C]onstitutional issues, including sentencing issues based upon the constitution, are waived if they are not properly raised in the trial court.”). 2021III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010)) (finding appellant's constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the trial court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule on them); see also Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“[C]onstitutional issues, including sentencing issues based upon the constitution, are waived if they are not properly raised in the trial court.”). -7- As the Commonwealth argues herein, Appellant failed to raise his constitutional challenges to SORNA, or any other objection, before the trial court at the time of his | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Manngreen2 sentences2022See Pa.R.A.P. 302 (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived”); Mann, 820 A.2d at 794 (finding that appellant waived discretionary aspects of sentencing claim where his boilerplate post-sentence motion failed to state basis of challenge with specificity and particularity). 2022See Commonwealth v. Mann, 820 A.2d 788, 794 (Pa. Super. 2003) (discretionary sentencing claim waived where, although appellant filed a post-sentence motion for reconsideration of sentence, the motion did not include the specific claim raised on appeal); Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-93 (Pa. Super. 2001) (by failing to raise the specific claim that the trial court failed to state reasons for its sentence on the record in a post- sentence motion, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to consider the claim and thus the claim was waived on appeal). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Howegreen2 sentences2021III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010)) (finding appellant’s constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the trial court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule on them); see also Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“[C]onstitutional issues, including sentencing issues based upon the constitution, are waived if they are not properly raised in the trial court.”). 2021III, 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (Pa. 2010)) (finding appellant's constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the trial court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule on them); see also Commonwealth v. Howe, 842 A.2d 436, 441 (Pa. Super. 2004) (“[C]onstitutional issues, including sentencing issues based upon the constitution, are waived if they are not properly raised in the trial court.”). -7- As the Commonwealth argues herein, Appellant failed to raise his constitutional challenges to SORNA, or any other objection, before the trial court at the time of his | 2 | 2 |
Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLCgreen2 sentences2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied 2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied 2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences2018III, 607 Pa. 45 , 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (2010) (citations omitted) (finding appellant’s constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the lower court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule upon them); see also Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 295 Pa. Super. 429 , 441 A.2d 1308, 1312, n.6 (1982) (even issues of constitutional dimension cannot be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)). 2018III, 607 Pa. 45 , 2 A.3d 1201, 1212 (2010) (citations omitted) (finding appellant’s constitutional claims waived where he failed to raise them before the lower court, depriving that tribunal of the opportunity to consider and rule upon them); see also Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 295 Pa. Super. 429 , 441 A.2d 1308, 1312, n.6 (1982) (even issues of constitutional dimension cannot be raised for the first time on appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 302(a)). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Tejadagreen1 sentence2026Moury, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-693 (Pa. Super. 2001) (by failing to raise a specific claim regarding imposition of sentence in post- sentence motion, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to consider the claim and thus the claim was waived on appeal); Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 799 (Pa. Super. 2015) (although challenges to discretionary aspects of sentence were raised in Rule 1925(b) statement and trial court addressed them in its opinion, issues were waived because the appellant failed to raise them at sentencing or in his post-sentence mo | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Talley, D.green1 sentence2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the trial court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); see also Commonwealth v. Talley, 236 A.3d 42, 50 (Pa. Super. 2020) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Smalinggreen1 sentence2017In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485, 491 (Pa.Super. 2013) (en banc). | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Smithgreen2 sentences1998“The purpose of post-trial motions is to allow a trial court the opportunity to consider and rule upon allegations of error committed by it.” In the Matter of Smith, 393 Pa.Super. 39, 49 , 573 A.2d 1077, 1081 (1990). 1998“The purpose of post-trial motions is to allow a trial court the opportunity to consider and rule upon allegations of error committed by it.” In the Matter of Smith, 393 Pa.Super. 39, 49 , 573 A.2d 1077, 1081 (1990). | 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. Mann, J.
green
2 sentences2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied 2020See Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”); Beemac Trucking, LLC v. CNG Concepts, LLC, 134 A.3d 1055, 1058 (Pa. Super. 2016) (“An issue raised for the first time in a concise statement is waived [because an issue raised for the first time after the filing of a notice of appeal deprives the trial court of the opportunity to consider the claim].”); Commonwealth v. Lawrence, 99 A.3d 116, 122 (Pa. Super. 2014) (claims challenging constitutionality of statutory provisions are generally subject to waiver), appeal denied | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Moury
green
1 sentence2026Moury, supra; see also Commonwealth v. Reeves, 778 A.2d 691, 692-693 (Pa. Super. 2001) (by failing to raise a specific claim regarding imposition of sentence in post- sentence motion, the trial court was deprived of an opportunity to consider the claim and thus the claim was waived on appeal); Commonwealth v. Tejada, 107 A.3d 788, 799 (Pa. Super. 2015) (although challenges to discretionary aspects of sentence were raised in Rule 1925(b) statement and trial court addressed them in its opinion, issues were waived because the appellant failed to raise them at sentencing or in his post-sentence mo | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Nutter v. Dougherty
green
2 sentences2008Additionally, to the extent there was any ambiguity as to whether the Ordinance conflicted with the Act, I believe the deferential standard set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340 , 938 A.2d 401 (2007), requires this Court to, in the facts and circumstances of this case, defer to the City’s exercise of municipal powers. 2008Additionally, to the extent there was any ambiguity as to whether the Ordinance conflicted with the Act, I believe the deferential standard set forth by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Nutter v. Dougherty, 595 Pa. 340 , 938 A.2d 401 (2007), requires this Court to, in the facts and circumstances of this case, defer to the City’s exercise of municipal powers. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Commonwealth v. Kyle
green
2 sentences1989Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987), allocatur denied, 518 Pa. 617 , 541 A.2d 744 (1988). 1989Commonwealth v. Kyle, 367 Pa.Super. 484 , 533 A.2d 120 (1987), allocatur denied, 518 Pa. 617 , 541 A.2d 744 (1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Brown v. Redevelopment Authority
green
2 sentences1979In Brown v. Redevelopment Authority of Harrisburg, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 415 , 386 A.2d 1052 (1978), we had the opportunity to consider the factors relevant in determining the admissibility of evidence regarding the purchase price of condemned property. 1979In Brown v. Redevelopment Authority of Harrisburg, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 415 , 386 A.2d 1052 (1978), we had the opportunity to consider the factors relevant in determining the admissibility of evidence regarding the purchase price of condemned property. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.