20 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1945–2025 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. Maldonadogreen2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 14 A.3d 907, 910 (Pa.Super. 2011). 2023See Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 14 A.3d 907, 910 (Pa.Super. 2011). -7- J-A17040-23 previously involved in an accident in the vehicle, which demonstrates he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle. | 2 | 2 |
City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp.green1 sentence2025See City of New York, 524 F.3d at 396 (reflecting court would not “construe the PLCAA as foreclosing the possibility that predicate statutes can exist by virtue of interpretations by state courts.”). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Banksgreen1 sentence2025Logically, to facilitate the opportunity to participate, the court must schedule the proceeding for a particular time and place, and a judge must sit on the bench at the proceeding “prepared to listen to both sides of the dispute and to consider deeply, reflect broadly, and decide impartially.” See Banks, 339 F.3d at 270-71 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Davis, 612 A.2d 426, 429 (Pa. 1992) (“[A] hearing intends a judgment bench attended by judges or officials sitting in a judicial capacity, prepared to listen to both sides of the dispute and to consider deeply, reflect broadly, a | 1 | 1 |
Alden v. Mainegreen1 sentence2025According to amici, the PLCAA impermissibly intrudes on states’ ability to allocate their law-making authority between their legislatures and courts, through the predicate exception and concludes “[a] congressional enactment, like [the] PLCAA that denies state court authority to declare state law and requires instead exclusive reliance on legislatures for the definitive pronouncement of that state’s law invades the core of state sovereignty.” Id. at 24 (citing Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 751 (1999)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Alexander Calorgreen2 sentences2025RCJ - 3 Although the term “hearing” can be used to refer to different proceedings in different contexts under both federal and Pennsylvania law, such as a proceeding at which documentary evidence is received or testimony is taken, “the term is not ambiguous in this context.” See United States v. Calor, 340 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added).6 The United States Courts of Appeals have consistently concluded that, “for the purposes of [§ 922(g)(8)(A)], a hearing simply is a proceeding of which the defendant has ‘actual notice’ and an ‘opportunity to participate.’” United States v. You 2025RCJ - 3 Although the term “hearing” can be used to refer to different proceedings in different contexts under both federal and Pennsylvania law, such as a proceeding at which documentary evidence is received or testimony is taken, “the term is not ambiguous in this context.” See United States v. Calor, 340 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added).6 The United States Courts of Appeals have consistently concluded that, “for the purposes of [§ 922(g)(8)(A)], a hearing simply is a proceeding of which the defendant has ‘actual notice’ and an ‘opportunity to participate.’” United States v. You | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Brad Wayne Younggreen1 sentence2025RCJ - 3 Although the term “hearing” can be used to refer to different proceedings in different contexts under both federal and Pennsylvania law, such as a proceeding at which documentary evidence is received or testimony is taken, “the term is not ambiguous in this context.” See United States v. Calor, 340 F.3d 428, 431 (6th Cir. 2003) (emphasis added).6 The United States Courts of Appeals have consistently concluded that, “for the purposes of [§ 922(g)(8)(A)], a hearing simply is a proceeding of which the defendant has ‘actual notice’ and an ‘opportunity to participate.’” United States v. You | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Davisgreen1 sentence2025Logically, to facilitate the opportunity to participate, the court must schedule the proceeding for a particular time and place, and a judge must sit on the bench at the proceeding “prepared to listen to both sides of the dispute and to consider deeply, reflect broadly, and decide impartially.” See Banks, 339 F.3d at 270-71 (citation omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Davis, 612 A.2d 426, 429 (Pa. 1992) (“[A] hearing intends a judgment bench attended by judges or officials sitting in a judicial capacity, prepared to listen to both sides of the dispute and to consider deeply, reflect broadly, a | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Blakeney, H., Aplt.green2 sentences2023Blakeney, 193 A.3d at 361 (OISR). 30 Id. at 362 (OISR). [J-87-2022] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 8 We found this assertion puzzling, explaining that the newspaper reports revealed the content of the emails, and the emails revealed the predicate for the claim of judicial bias.31 The Blakeney OISR also criticized the OISA’s view that a petitioner is required to prove the new fact upon which the claim is predicated. 2023Blakeney, 193 A.3d at 361 (OISR). 30 Id. at 362 (OISR). [J-87-2022] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 8 We found this assertion puzzling, explaining that the newspaper reports revealed the content of the emails, and the emails revealed the predicate for the claim of judicial bias.31 The Blakeney OISR also criticized the OISA’s view that a petitioner is required to prove the new fact upon which the claim is predicated. | 1 | 1 |
Phillips v. Seliggreen1 sentence2022Phillips v. Selig, 959 A.2d 420, 437 (Pa. Super. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Carrasquillo, J.green1 sentence2018Rather, the proper standard is “whether the accused has made some colorable demonstration, under the circumstances, such that permitting withdrawal of the plea would promote fairness and justice.” Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1292 (Pa. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
In re Merlogreen2 sentences2017See, e.g., Merlo, 619 Pa. at 24 , 58 A.3d at 15 (rejecting an argument similar to Appellant’s, namely, that the sanctions imposed were “unlawful because they are greater than those imposed in other cases”). 2017See, e.g., Merlo, 619 Pa. at 24 , 58 A.3d at 15 (rejecting an argument similar to Appellant’s, namely, that the sanctions imposed were “unlawful because they are greater than those imposed in other cases”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Riosgreen2 sentences2011See Rios, 591 Pa. at 622 , 920 A.2d at 812-13 . 16 . 2011See Rios, 591 Pa. at 622 , 920 A.2d at 812-13 . 16 . | 1 | 1 |
Cynthia Herdrich v. Lori Pegram, M.D., Carle Clinic Association, and Health Alliance Medical Plans, Incorporatedgreen2 sentences2001See Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362, 373 (7th Cir.1998). 2001See Herdrich v. Pegram, 154 F.3d 362, 373 (7th Cir.1998). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Melendezgreen2 sentences2000Our jurisprudence under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, however, would not sustain a consent search conducted in the context of, but which is wholly unrelated in its scope to, an ongoing detention, since there can be no constitutionally-valid detention independently or following a traffic or similar stop absent reasonable suspicion, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 329 , 676 A.2d 226, 229 (1996), and the scope of a detention is circumscribed by the reasons that justify it. 18 Therefore, if Robinette II is construed as such, there is a sound basis for con 2000Our jurisprudence under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, however, would not sustain a consent search conducted in the context of, but which is wholly unrelated in its scope to, an ongoing detention, since there can be no constitutionally-valid detention independently or following a traffic or similar stop absent reasonable suspicion, see, e.g., Commonwealth v. Melendez, 544 Pa. 323, 329 , 676 A.2d 226, 229 (1996), and the scope of a detention is circumscribed by the reasons that justify it. 18 Therefore, if Robinette II is construed as such, there is a sound basis for con | 1 | 1 |
Reynolds Metals Co. v. Bergergreen2 sentences1981See generally, Reynolds Metals Co. v. Berger, 423 Pa. 360 , 223 A.2d 855 (1966). 1981See generally, Reynolds Metals Co. v. Berger, 423 Pa. 360 , 223 A.2d 855 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
green
2 sentences2025Plaintiffs’ argument in this regard relies on their interpretation of the predicate exception, which they assert “allows states to enforce their tort law in otherwise prohibited lawsuits if the harm was caused by a knowing violation of a statute enacted by the legislature.” Id. at 50 (citing 15 U.S.C. § 7903 (4)(A)(iii)). 2025Unlike the statute at issue in Murphy, the predicate exception does not “dictate[] what a state legislature may and may not do.” Murphy, 584 U.S. at 474 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Matter of Application of Cesar Adrian Vargas for Admission to the Bar of the State of New York.
green
2 sentences2025In this sense, Plaintiffs analogize the PLCAA to the New York Court of Appeals decision in In re Vargas, 131 A.D.3d 4 (N.Y. 2025According to amici, the PLCAA impermissibly intrudes on states’ ability to allocate their law-making authority between their legislatures and courts, through the predicate exception and concludes “[a] congressional enactment, like [the] PLCAA that denies state court authority to declare state law and requires instead exclusive reliance on legislatures for the definitive pronouncement of that state’s law invades the core of state sovereignty.” Id. at 24 (citing Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 751 (1999)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Bennett
green
1 sentence2023The PCRA 33 Bennettt, 930 A.2d at 1271-72 34 To open the door to the PCRA courtroom, a petitioner is required to plead and prove the existence of a previously unknown predicate fact. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pennfield Corp. v. Meadow Valley Electric, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020The predicate for applying the doctrine of alternative liability is that “the conduct of two or more actors is tortious.” Id. at 1085 , quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 433B(3). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Bell v. Valdez
green
1 sentence2015The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in U.S. v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Winston Eugene Mitchell, Sr.
green
1 sentence2015The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion in U.S. v. Mitchell, 209 F.3d 319 (4th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Beasley
green
2 sentences2006Thus Holmes failed to demonstrate the predicate requirement that the instant claim was raised within sixty days of the date it first could be presented, and therefore, he did not sustain his burden of pleading and proving that the after-discovered evidence exception permits him to circumvent the statutory time-bar.” Majority Memorandum, at 511 ¶ 6 The majority cites to Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258 (1999) to support this conclusion. 2006Thus Holmes failed to demonstrate the predicate requirement that the instant claim was raised within sixty days of the date it first could be presented, and therefore, he did not sustain his burden of pleading and proving that the after-discovered evidence exception permits him to circumvent the statutory time-bar.” Majority Memorandum, at 511 ¶ 6 The majority cites to Commonwealth v. Beasley, 559 Pa. 604 , 741 A.2d 1258 (1999) to support this conclusion. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Hall v. Brown
green
2 sentences2006Rather, I believe that before this Court can review the statutory language governing the Guaranty Association in this regard, we must engage in a predicate analysis of the Superior Court’s decision in Hall v. Brown, 363 Pa.Super. 415 , 526 A.2d 413 (1987) (holding that an insurance carrier that has paid the limits of the policy will not be liable for delay damages except when acting in bad faith). 2006Rather, I believe that before this Court can review the statutory language governing the Guaranty Association in this regard, we must engage in a predicate analysis of the Superior Court’s decision in Hall v. Brown, 363 Pa.Super. 415 , 526 A.2d 413 (1987) (holding that an insurance carrier that has paid the limits of the policy will not be liable for delay damages except when acting in bad faith). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Pennsylvania State Police v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences2004He went on to distinguish Upper Makefield Township by noting that, "the PLRB’s decision under review here establishes, as a matter of fact, a past practice on the part of the State Police, which forms the predicate for a bar-gainable term and condition,” whereas the sole basis for the employee’s claim in Upper Makefield Township had been his reliance on the Act 111 statutory provision providing the right to grieve. 570 Pa. at 607-08 , 810 A.2d at 1248 . 8 . 2004He went on to distinguish Upper Makefield Township by noting that, "the PLRB’s decision under review here establishes, as a matter of fact, a past practice on the part of the State Police, which forms the predicate for a bar-gainable term and condition,” whereas the sole basis for the employee’s claim in Upper Makefield Township had been his reliance on the Act 111 statutory provision providing the right to grieve. 570 Pa. at 607-08 , 810 A.2d at 1248 . 8 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In re Tax Claim Bureau of Northampton County
green
1 sentence2004Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Richard Alan Brady, Frank Pontillo, Also Known as Franky Steel, Robert Montano, Michael Dematteo and John Pate
green
1 sentence2001Brady, 26 F.3d at 291 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
National Association v. Barrett
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 291. 12 In National Association of Government Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997), affirmed by Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.1998), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia analyzed Brady . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
National Ass'n of Government Employees, Inc. v. Barrett
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 291. 12 In National Association of Government Employees, Inc. v. Barrett, 968 F.Supp. 1564 (N.D.Ga.1997), affirmed by Hiley v. Barrett, 155 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir.1998), the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia analyzed Brady . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Bulkley v. Eckert
green
1 sentence1945To mate my point, I am not obliged to question the rule itself; yet I cannot refrain from saying that if the rationale which the majority has discovered in Bulkley v. Eckert, supra, is the only predicate for the rule, it has little, if any, rational basis in these days. | 1 | 1945–1945 |
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.