13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2014–2023 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. Whitlockgreen2 sentences2014Thus, we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses together with the Commonwealth’s evidence that, when read in context of the record at the suppression hearing, remains uncontradict-ed. 5 Id.; Commonwealth v. Whitlock, 69 A.3d 635, 637 (Pa.Super.2013). 2014Thus, we may consider only the evidence from the appellee’s witnesses together with the Commonwealth’s evidence that, when read in context of the record at the suppression hearing, remains uncontradicted.5 Id.; Commonwealth v. ____________________________________________ 5 Our Supreme Court in L.J. clarified that the scope of review of orders granting or denying motions to suppress is limited to the evidence presented (Footnote Continued Next Page) -4- J-S49034-14 Whitlock, 69 A.3d 635, 637 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 5 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Fulton, I., Aplt.green2 sentences2019N.T., 4/23/2018, at 9, 11, 18, 32, 36, 41, 52, 56; Exhibit CS-1; see Fulton, 179 A.3d at 487 ; Yim, 195 A.3d at 926 . 6 Although Appellant did not include this issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal, a challenge to the legality of a sentence cannot be waived. 2019N.T. 6/20/17 at 15, 17-22, 11-14; Exhibit CS-1, CS- 2; See Fulton, 179 A.3d at 487 ; Yim, 195 A.3d at 926 . | 2 | 2 |
In the Interest of L.J.green1 sentence2023See id. 6 Similarly, the numerous amici briefs filed in this case do not address the issues preserved by the Commonwealth. 5 1. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Priskgreen1 sentence2017However, we note that while the suppression court stated its factual findings on the record at the suppression hearing prior to issuing its ruling and made a passing reference to officer safety, it did not issue specific “conclusions of law as to whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, or in violation of these rules or any statute,” as is required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I). -4- J-S21032-17 Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 530 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 , 26–27 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Daysgreen1 sentence2017Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Days, 718 A.2d 797, 802, n. 8 (Pa Super. 1998)). | 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. Yim
green
2 sentences2019N.T., 4/23/2018, at 9, 11, 18, 32, 36, 41, 52, 56; Exhibit CS-1; see Fulton, 179 A.3d at 487 ; Yim, 195 A.3d at 926 . 6 Although Appellant did not include this issue in his statement of errors complained of on appeal, a challenge to the legality of a sentence cannot be waived. 2019N.T. 6/20/17 at 15, 17-22, 11-14; Exhibit CS-1, CS- 2; See Fulton, 179 A.3d at 487 ; Yim, 195 A.3d at 926 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Davis
green
1 sentence2022Id. ____________________________________________ 5 See Pa.R.A.P. 311(d) (permitting the Commonwealth to take an interlocutory appeal as a matter of right where it certifies in the notice of appeal that the order will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution). -4- J-A09028-22 To prevail on a motion to suppress challenging a search, the defendant must have a privacy interest in the area in which the government intruded. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Illinois v. Gates
green
1 sentence2019Id. ____________________________________________ 1 Detective Carney read the contents of the probable cause affidavit into the record at the suppression hearing. -4- J-A08019-19 at 22. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Ventura
green
1 sentence2017Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Days, 718 A.2d 797, 802, n. 8 (Pa Super. 1998)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Williams
green
1 sentence2017However, we note that while the suppression court stated its factual findings on the record at the suppression hearing prior to issuing its ruling and made a passing reference to officer safety, it did not issue specific “conclusions of law as to whether the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, or in violation of these rules or any statute,” as is required by Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(I). -4- J-S21032-17 Commonwealth v. Prisk, 13 A.3d 526, 530 (Pa. Super. 2011) (quoting Commonwealth v. Williams, 941 A.2d 14 , 26–27 (Pa. Super. 2008) (en banc)). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Ruey
green
1 sentence2015This information, all of which the record at the suppression hearing supports, is -8- J-S70010-15 sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause to arrest Appellant. 4 See Clark, supra at 1288 ; Ruey, supra at 815-16 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Clark
green
1 sentence2015This information, all of which the record at the suppression hearing supports, is -8- J-S70010-15 sufficient to establish the requisite probable cause to arrest Appellant. 4 See Clark, supra at 1288 ; Ruey, supra at 815-16 . | 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.