13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2024 1 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. Colemangreen2 sentences2020Indeed, the timeline in question comprised significant delays from both Appellant’s numerous pro se motions requiring the scheduling of hearing dates and the Commonwealth’s successful interlocutory appeal to this Court from the trial court’s ruling granting Appellant’s motion to dismiss based upon the Infancy Defense.5 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis and, therefore, conclude the trial ____________________________________________ 5 This Court has held that “’excusable delay’ for purposes of Rule [600] review includes delay caused by appellate review of pretrial motio 2020Indeed, the timeline in question comprised significant delays from both Appellant’s numerous pro se motions requiring the scheduling of hearing dates and the Commonwealth’s successful interlocutory appeal to this Court from the trial court’s ruling granting Appellant’s motion to dismiss based upon the Infancy Defense.5 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis and, therefore, conclude the trial ____________________________________________ 5 This Court has held that “’excusable delay’ for purposes of Rule [600] review includes delay caused by appellate review of pretrial motio | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Ferrigreen2 sentences2020Indeed, the timeline in question comprised significant delays from both Appellant’s numerous pro se motions requiring the scheduling of hearing dates and the Commonwealth’s successful interlocutory appeal to this Court from the trial court’s ruling granting Appellant’s motion to dismiss based upon the Infancy Defense.5 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis and, therefore, conclude the trial ____________________________________________ 5 This Court has held that “’excusable delay’ for purposes of Rule [600] review includes delay caused by appellate review of pretrial motio 2020Indeed, the timeline in question comprised significant delays from both Appellant’s numerous pro se motions requiring the scheduling of hearing dates and the Commonwealth’s successful interlocutory appeal to this Court from the trial court’s ruling granting Appellant’s motion to dismiss based upon the Infancy Defense.5 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s analysis and, therefore, conclude the trial ____________________________________________ 5 This Court has held that “’excusable delay’ for purposes of Rule [600] review includes delay caused by appellate review of pretrial motio | 2 | 2 |
Schoff v. Richtergreen1 sentence2024See Schoff, 562 A.2d at 913 (stating, the trial court must expressly grant reconsideration within the allowable time period; the scheduling of a hearing on the motion for reconsideration is insufficient to toll the appeal period). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2015See N.T., 11/25/2013, at 51-52; see also Jones, 886 A.2d at 701-02 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Holdengreen2 sentences1987Erie Human Relations Commission v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 304 Pa.Super. 172, 174 , 450 A.2d 157, 158 (1982) (“A petition for reconsideration will not stay the appeal period”); Commonwealth v. Holden, 358 Pa.Super. 238, 240 , 516 A.2d 1273, 1274-5 (1986) (“ 'The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court’s scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal____’”) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 Commentary); See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701. 1987Erie Human Relations Commission v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 304 Pa.Super. 172, 174 , 450 A.2d 157, 158 (1982) (“A petition for reconsideration will not stay the appeal period”); Commonwealth v. Holden, 358 Pa.Super. 238, 240 , 516 A.2d 1273, 1274-5 (1986) (“ 'The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court’s scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal____’”) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 Commentary); See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701. | 1 | 1 |
Erie Human Relations Commission Ex Rel. Dunson v. Erie Insurance Exchangegreen2 sentences1987Erie Human Relations Commission v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 304 Pa.Super. 172, 174 , 450 A.2d 157, 158 (1982) (“A petition for reconsideration will not stay the appeal period”); Commonwealth v. Holden, 358 Pa.Super. 238, 240 , 516 A.2d 1273, 1274-5 (1986) (“ 'The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court’s scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal____’”) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 Commentary); See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701. 1987Erie Human Relations Commission v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 304 Pa.Super. 172, 174 , 450 A.2d 157, 158 (1982) (“A petition for reconsideration will not stay the appeal period”); Commonwealth v. Holden, 358 Pa.Super. 238, 240 , 516 A.2d 1273, 1274-5 (1986) (“ 'The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court’s scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal____’”) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 Commentary); See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 1410 and Pa.R.A.P. 1701. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Dauphin County Fourth Investigating Grand Jury
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Commonwealth v. Finley
green
1 sentence2019The PCRA court asserts that “due to a scheduling error, th[e instant case] was listed separately from [8666-2015 and 10593-2014], which were ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903, respectively. 2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -2- J-S56038-19 formally dismissed on March 13, 2018.” PCRA Ct. Op., 5/2/19, at 1-2. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Turner
green
1 sentence2019The PCRA court asserts that “due to a scheduling error, th[e instant case] was listed separately from [8666-2015 and 10593-2014], which were ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 3121(a)(1) and 18 Pa.C.S. § 2903, respectively. 2Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988); Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1988) (en banc). -2- J-S56038-19 formally dismissed on March 13, 2018.” PCRA Ct. Op., 5/2/19, at 1-2. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Taxin v. Shoemaker
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lyness v. Com., State Bd. of Medicine
green
2 sentences1995Prior to the scheduling of a hearing in this matter, our Supreme Court decided Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535 , 605 A.2d 1204 (1992) wherein it held that the same administrative body cannot commingle prosecutory and adjudicatory functions. 1995Prior to the scheduling of a hearing in this matter, our Supreme Court decided Lyness v. State Board of Medicine, 529 Pa. 535 , 605 A.2d 1204 (1992) wherein it held that the same administrative body cannot commingle prosecutory and adjudicatory functions. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Ruza v. Commonwealth
neutral
1 sentence1989Id. at 485, 458 A.2d at 663 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Wilkinson
green
2 sentences1980Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 260 Pa.Super. 77 , 393 A.2d 1020 (1978) makes clear that this Comment to Rule 1410 is an accurate statement of the law existing even before Rule 1410 was adopted. 1980Commonwealth v. Wilkinson, 260 Pa.Super. 77 , 393 A.2d 1020 (1978) makes clear that this Comment to Rule 1410 is an accurate statement of the law existing even before Rule 1410 was adopted. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Commonwealth v. Holmes
green
1 sentence1977Commonwealth v. Holmes, supra 248 Pa. at 560, 375 A.2d at 382 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.