testimony presented hearing (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

testimony presented hearing in Pennsylvania

13 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1935–2019 0 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Widmer Engineering, Inc. v. Dufallagreen
pasuperct · 2003 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
1 sentence

2018Widmer Engineering, Inc., 837 A.2d at 467-68 (citations, quotation marks, and quotations omitted). - 11 - J-A05038-18 In the case sub judice, in explaining its holding that Appellant materially breached the parties’ agreement, the trial court relevantly indicated the following: Having considered the testimony presented at the hearing, as well as the exhibits of record, [the trial court] conclude[s] that [Appellant’s] failure to ensure the safe return of the dogs to [Appellee] as contemplated by the agreement was a material breach thereof. *** In this case, the safe return of the dogs to [Appel

11
Commonwealth v. Padillagreen
pa · 2013 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See Commonwealth v. Padilla, 80 A.3d 1238, 1259 (Pa. 2013).

11
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen
pasuperct · 2005 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006See Commonwealth v. Stewart, 867 A.2d 589, 593 (Pa.Super.2005) (“A trial court judge has wide discretion in sentencing and can, on the appropriate record and for the appropriate reasons, consider any legal factor in imposing a sentence in the aggravated range.”). ¶ 22 In the present case, a reading of the sentencing transcript reveals that the sentencing court did not sentence Shugars in the aggravated range simply because he was classified as a sexually violent predator; instead, the sentencing court carefully considered the information gleaned from the proceedings conducted pursuant to Megan

11
Commonwealth v. Mastersgreen
pasuperct · 1999 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000Recently, in Commonwealth v. Masters, 737 A.2d 1229, 1232 (Pa.Super.1999), we reversed a suppression court’s finding that there was insufficient reasonable suspicion for the stop because we concluded that the repeated lane changes, even absent other traffic concerns, warranted the stop.

11
Commonwealth v. Fostargreen
pa · 1974 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Having considered all the testimony presented at the hearing, it was the function of the trier of fact to resolve the question of whether appellant had formed the specific intent to commit murder of the first degree. *176 See Commonwealth v. Fostar, 455 Pa. 226 , 317 A.2d 188 (1974).

1977See Commonwealth v. Fostar, 455 Pa. 226 , 317 A.2d 188 (1974).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Markman green
pa · 2007
2 sentences

2018Nonetheless, without conducting an analysis of whether admission of the exhibits was proper, and without discussing any of the bases for finding harmless error, the Superior Court instead found that Mother failed to establish “how she was harmed” by the admission of the documents, “particularly as the testimony presented at the hearing provided sufficient support for … termination.” Id.

2018Nonetheless, without conducting an analysis of whether admission of the exhibits was proper, and without discussing any of the bases for finding harmless error, the Superior Court instead found that Mother failed to establish "how she was harmed" by the admission of the documents, "particularly as the testimony presented at the hearing provided sufficient *1166 support for ... termination." Id.

22018–2018
In the Interest of: J.G., a Minor green
pasuperct · 2016
1 sentence

2019In Interest of J.G., 145 A.3d at 1188 .

12019–2019
Riley v. Talaber green
pa · 2017
1 sentence

2018The Superior Court recognized that the orphans7 court made no determination as to whether hearsay statements appearing within the documents qualified for an exception to the prohibition against hearsay Nonetheless, without conducting an analysis of whether admission of the exhibits was proper, and without discussing any of the bases for finding harmless error, the Superior Court instead found that Mother failed to establish “how she was harmed” by the admission of the documents, “particularly as the testimony presented at the hearing provided sufficient support for termination.” ‘/d. lt theref

12018–2018
Commonwealth v. Lawrentz green
pasuperct · 1996
2 sentences

2000Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Lawrentz, 453 Pa.Super. 118 , 683 A.2d 303 (1996), we vacated the lower court’s order suppressing evidence derived from a traffic stop where the testimony presented at the hearing indicated that appellee was “weaving” and “swaying” for up to a mile and a half and that he had crossed the center line on two occasions.

2000Similarly, in Commonwealth v. Lawrentz, 453 Pa.Super. 118 , 683 A.2d 303 (1996), we vacated the lower court’s order suppressing evidence derived from a traffic stop where the testimony presented at the hearing indicated that appellee was “weaving” and “swaying” for up to a mile and a half and that he had crossed the center line on two occasions.

12000–2000
In Re Condemnation by City of Philadelphia of Leasehold of Airportels, Inc. green
pacommwct · 1979
2 sentences

1993Further, from the testimony presented at the hearing, it was apparent that the condemnor continued to insist that no taking had occurred despite a final decision to the contrary. 2 Airportels, 40 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 416, 398 A.2d at 227 .

1993Further, from the testimony presented at the hearing, it was apparent that the condemnor continued to insist that no taking had occurred despite a final decision to the contrary. [2] *501 Airportels, 40 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. at 416, 398 A.2d at 227 .

11993–1993
Commonwealth v. Pierce green
pa · 1973
2 sentences

1980Id. at 647. [21] Venue Exh. 18 at 647. [22] In Pierce , this Court relied upon sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press (Approved Draft, 1968), which recommend restrictions on disclosures by prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officers, to set down the following rule: "[I]n this Commonwealth policemen and members of the staffs of the office of District Attorneys shall not release to the news media; (a) the existence or contents of any statement or confession given by the accused, or his refusal to give a statement or to take tests; (b) prior crimina

1980Id. at 647. [21] Venue Exh. 18 at 647. [22] In Pierce , this Court relied upon sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the ABA Standards Relating to Fair Trial and Free Press (Approved Draft, 1968), which recommend restrictions on disclosures by prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officers, to set down the following rule: "[I]n this Commonwealth policemen and members of the staffs of the office of District Attorneys shall not release to the news media; (a) the existence or contents of any statement or confession given by the accused, or his refusal to give a statement or to take tests; (b) prior crimina

11980–1980
Welsko v. Foster Township School District green
pa · 1956
2 sentences

1979Finally, appellant contends that he was entitled to certification in English at the time of his suspension because he had completed all the course work for certification and thus his suspension was improper under the rule in Welsko v. Foster Township School District, 383 Pa. 390 , 119 A.2d 43 (1956) since he had more seniority than English teachers retained at the time of his suspension.

1979Finally, appellant contends that he was entitled to certification in English at the time of his suspension because he had completed all the course work for certification and thus his suspension was improper under the rule in Welsko v. Foster Township School District, 383 Pa. 390 , 119 A.2d 43 (1956) since he had more seniority than English teachers retained at the time of his suspension.

11979–1979
Commonwealth v. Halteman green
pasuperct · 1960
2 sentences

1975The test in a hearing de novo before the court of common pleas is not whether the Secretary of Transportation abused his discretion, but whether, from the evidence before the court, petitioner’s certificate should be suspended: Commonwealth v. Halteman, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 379 , 162 A. 2d 251 (1960); Civitello v. Bureau of Traffic Safety, supra. We are convinced after careful consideration of all the testimony presented at bar and an examination of the Commonwealth’s exhibits that petitioner inadvertently inserted the number “2” in the place of the number “3” when recording the dates he perfo

1975The test in a hearing de novo before the court of common pleas is not whether the Secretary of Transportation abused his discretion, but whether, from the evidence before the court, petitioner’s certificate should be suspended: Commonwealth v. Halteman, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 379 , 162 A. 2d 251 (1960); Civitello v. Bureau of Traffic Safety, supra. We are convinced after careful consideration of all the testimony presented at bar and an examination of the Commonwealth’s exhibits that petitioner inadvertently inserted the number “2” in the place of the number “3” when recording the dates he perfo

11975–1975
Commonwealth v. Hadok green
pa · 1933
1 sentence

1935In Com. v. Hadok, supra, in the same connection, we said, (page 115) : “As to the contention that the *248 charge unduly stressed the Commonwealth’s evidence, and did not amply cover the testimony presented by the defense, an examination of the charge shows that this argument is little more than a complaint that the trial judge did not argue defendant’s cause to the jury.” These words may well be applied to this case.

11935–1935

Where else courts name it

NY 51 (1961–2022) IL 32 (1937–2021) OH 15 (2000–2024) MA 14 (1994–2018) PA 13 (1935–2019) FL 10 (1996–2019) TX 9 (1983–2015) LA 6 (1978–2023) GA 6 (1980–2025) AL 4 (1988–2015) NJ 4 (1940–2026) CA 4 (1998–2024) WI 3 (1994–2024) NC 3 (1989–2014) CO 3 (1961–2025) MO 3 (1979–1999) DE 2 (1974–2025) NH 2 (1992–1994) CT 2 (1982–1992) DC 2 (1985–1989) KY 2 (2021–2023) SC 2 (1987–2014) AZ 2 (2010–2016)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check