14 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Medina v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2024“The Cox analysis requires a parolee to show the specific restrictions on his liberty at a particular facility are the equivalent of incarceration; thus, the Cox comparison is between restrictions on the parolee at a facility and restrictions on the parolee when he was in prison.” Medina v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 , 1123- 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 2024“The Cox analysis requires a parolee to show the specific restrictions on his liberty at a particular facility are the equivalent of incarceration; thus, the Cox comparison is between restrictions on the parolee at a facility and restrictions on the parolee when he was in prison.” Medina v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 120 A.3d 1116 , 1123- 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). | 3 | 4 |
Torres v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2024Torres v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 861 A.2d 394, 400-01 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 2024Torres v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 861 A.2d 394, 400-01 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). | 2 | 4 |
Pa. Manufacturers' Ass'n Ins. Co. v. Johnson Matthey, Inc.green1 sentence2024See Pennsylvania Manufacturers’, 188 A.3d at 400 ; see also Toth, ___ A.3d ___, 2024 WL 3944443 , at *9. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2023See Smith, 995 A.2d at 1151 ; Jones, 942 A.2d at 906 . | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Hainesgreen1 sentence2019Pittinger further provided that “I am requesting that mitigating circumstances, as mentioned in Administrative Review Appeal, which includes warranted time credit to be applied for times spent in facilities/programs where I was not “at liberty” and where under confinement, be considered, and have merit.” Id. 5 A.2d 680, 683 (Pa. 1985) (holding that a parolee could be entitled to credit for time spent in a treatment program if the restrictions on his liberty while participating in the program were the “equivalent of incarceration”) (hereinafter, Cox issue). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). 2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). | 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. Tejeda
green
2 sentences2020Given that only one juror was aware of the shooting, and no juror was aware of any relationship between the victim, Cox, and the parties involved in the shooting, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial - 13 - J-S10029-20 court in determining that the shooting was not “of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive [Cox] of a fair and impartial trial.” See Tejada, supra. Accordingly, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that Cox’s challenge to the denial of a mistrial is wholly frivolous. 2020Given that only one juror was aware of the shooting, and no juror was aware of any relationship between the victim, Cox, and the parties involved in the shooting, we discern no abuse of discretion by the trial - 13 - J-S10029-20 court in determining that the shooting was not “of such a nature that its unavoidable effect is to deprive [Cox] of a fair and impartial trial.” See Tejada, supra. Accordingly, we agree with counsel’s conclusion that Cox’s challenge to the denial of a mistrial is wholly frivolous. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
1 sentence2023See Smith, 995 A.2d at 1151 ; Jones, 942 A.2d at 906 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2019Pittinger further provided that “I am requesting that mitigating circumstances, as mentioned in Administrative Review Appeal, which includes warranted time credit to be applied for times spent in facilities/programs where I was not “at liberty” and where under confinement, be considered, and have merit.” Id. 5 A.2d 680, 683 (Pa. 1985) (holding that a parolee could be entitled to credit for time spent in a treatment program if the restrictions on his liberty while participating in the program were the “equivalent of incarceration”) (hereinafter, Cox issue). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Perrin
green
1 sentence2016PCRA Court *612 Opinion, 7/29/2015, at 7 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perrin, 59 A.3d 663 (Pa.Super.2011), vacated, 628 Pa. 76 , 103 A.3d 1224 (2014)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Perrin
green
1 sentence2016PCRA Court *612 Opinion, 7/29/2015, at 7 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perrin, 59 A.3d 663 (Pa.Super.2011), vacated, 628 Pa. 76 , 103 A.3d 1224 (2014)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Perrin
green
1 sentence2016PCRA Court *612 Opinion, 7/29/2015, at 7 (quoting Commonwealth v. Perrin, 59 A.3d 663 (Pa.Super.2011), vacated, 628 Pa. 76 , 103 A.3d 1224 (2014)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Reavis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2015See Medina, ___ A.3d at _, slip op. at 17, 2015 WL 4291193 at *78; Reavis, 909 A.2d at 36 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Cox
green
2 sentences2008In discussing Cox's claim, this Court first noted that the trial court "instructed the jurors that the decision was their decision to make and the court's view of the evidence had no controlling effect in `any way, shape or form.'" Id. 2008In discussing Cox’s claim, this Court first noted that the trial court “instructed the jurors that the decision was their decision to make and the court’s view of the evidence had no controlling effect in ‘any way, shape or form.’ ” Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kuykendall v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). [1] See Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 576 Pa. 588 , 840 A.2d 299 (2003) (reiterating that offenders released on parole remain in legal custody and under control of Commonwealth until expiration of maximum sentence, and when arrested while on parole an automatic Board detainer is applied and also when arrested on parole Board may place detainer that prevents bail pending disposition of new charges or o 2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). [1] See Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 576 Pa. 588 , 840 A.2d 299 (2003) (reiterating that offenders released on parole remain in legal custody and under control of Commonwealth until expiration of maximum sentence, and when arrested while on parole an automatic Board detainer is applied and also when arrested on parole Board may place detainer that prevents bail pending disposition of new charges or o | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). [1] See Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 576 Pa. 588 , 840 A.2d 299 (2003) (reiterating that offenders released on parole remain in legal custody and under control of Commonwealth until expiration of maximum sentence, and when arrested while on parole an automatic Board detainer is applied and also when arrested on parole Board may place detainer that prevents bail pending disposition of new charges or o 2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). [1] See Martin v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 576 Pa. 588 , 840 A.2d 299 (2003) (reiterating that offenders released on parole remain in legal custody and under control of Commonwealth until expiration of maximum sentence, and when arrested while on parole an automatic Board detainer is applied and also when arrested on parole Board may place detainer that prevents bail pending disposition of new charges or o | 1 | 2005–2005 |
McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). 2005See White v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 833 A.2d 819 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003); McCaskill v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 158 Pa.Cmwlth. 450 , 631 A.2d 1092 (1993). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.