17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 3 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. Thompsongreen2 sentences2020Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014). 2018Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A); Commonwealth v. Thompson, 93 A.3d 478, 490 (Pa. Super. 2014). | 7 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Griffingreen2 sentences2019See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013). 2019See Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Austingreen2 sentences2019See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that an appellant must preserve a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence in a timely post - sentence motion). 2019See Commonwealth v. Austin, 66 A.3d 798, 808 (Pa. Super. 2013) (noting that an appellant must preserve a challenge to the discretionary aspects of his sentence in a timely post- sentence motion). | 2 | 2 |
Com. v. Juray, R., Jr.green1 sentence2026See Juray, 275 A.3d at 1048 . | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Bonnett, P.green1 sentence2025See Commonwealth v. Bonnett, 239 A.3d 1096, 1106 (Pa. Super. 2020) (holding that in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant’s Rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Priestgreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 938 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citing Commonwealth v. Priest, 18 A.3d 1235, 1239 (Pa. Super. 2011); see also -6- J-S58019-18 Pa.R.Crim.P. 607(A). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lincolngreen1 sentence2015See Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 72 A.3d 606, 609-10 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 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. Barnes
green
1 sentence2021Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. McAfee
green
1 sentence2015In the Rule 2119(f) statement, “the appellant must show that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Code.” McAfee, 849 A.2d at 274 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.