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.
16 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2013–2022 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hont v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2017Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Probation and Parole, 680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc); Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . 2016Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 705 A.2d 513, 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Hont v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc); Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2016Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 562 (Pa. 1990). 2015Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 562 (Pa. 1990). | 2 | 2 |
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2018Where a no-merit letter is sufficient but counsel has instead chosen to submit an Anders brief, we apply the lack of merit standard. 77 A.3d at 70 . 2018Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 A.3d 66, 69-70 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 2 The Certified Record does not clearly confirm that Brantley was actually transferred to Minsec. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Santiagogreen1 sentence2021Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349, 351 (Pa. 2009). 7 brief on his behalf, we apply the lack of merit standard. 7 Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4 (“As in the past, we will not deny an application to withdraw simply because an attorney has filed an Anders brief where a no-merit letter would suffice. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2017Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091 , 1093 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 6 be received within 30 days of the mailing date of the Board’s order. 37 Pa. Code § 73.1 (a)(1), (b)(1); see also 61 Pa. C.S. § 6113(d)(1); Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1094 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 2017Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication was in accordance with the law, and whether necessary findings were supported by substantial evidence. 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091 , 1093 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 6 be received within 30 days of the mailing date of the Board’s order. 37 Pa. Code § 73.1 (a)(1), (b)(1); see also 61 Pa. C.S. § 6113(d)(1); Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 81 A.3d 1091, 1094 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Jefferson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2016Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 705 A.2d 513, 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Hont v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc); Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2022Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25 -26 (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)). 2017Id. | 8 | 2013–2022 |
Palmer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2019Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 2 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board’s decision is in accordance with law, or whether the parolee’s constitutional rights have been violated. 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160 , 164 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 4 Johnson’s right to counsel arises pursuant to Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as amended, 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(10) and therefor 2019Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 2 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board’s decision is in accordance with law, or whether the parolee’s constitutional rights have been violated. 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160 , 164 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 4 Johnson’s right to counsel arises pursuant to Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as amended, 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(10) and therefor | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2019Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 2 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board’s decision is in accordance with law, or whether the parolee’s constitutional rights have been violated. 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160 , 164 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 4 Johnson’s right to counsel arises pursuant to Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as amended, 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(10) and therefor 2019Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 2 Our review is limited to determining whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether the Board’s decision is in accordance with law, or whether the parolee’s constitutional rights have been violated. 2 Pa.C.S. §704; Palmer v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 134 A.3d 160 , 164 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 3 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 4 Johnson’s right to counsel arises pursuant to Section 6(a)(10) of the Public Defender Act, Act of December 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, as amended, 16 P.S. § 9960.6(a)(10) and therefor | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Wesley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2017Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Probation and Parole, 680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc); Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . 2016Hughes, 977 A.2d at 26 n.4. 4 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 705 A.2d 513, 514 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); Hont v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 680 A.2d 47, 48 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (en banc); Wesley, 614 A.2d at 356 . | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2022Hughes, 977 A.2d at 25 -26 (quoting Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Seilhamer v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2021Seilhamer, 996 A.2d at 42 n.4. 7 Because Detelich does not have a constitutional right to counsel, we apply the lack-of- merit standard.5 In this matter, Counsel has satisfied her duty pursuant to Craig. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hughes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
green
1 sentence2021Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.