adopt analysis in Pennsylvania

2024The Commonwealth urges this Court to adopt the analysis of Beeren, 68 Pa. D. & C. 2d 93 , where the defendant was convicted for unlawful use of a vehicle to hunt under Section 704 of the Game Law of 1937, formerly 34 P.S. §1311.704.5 5 The Game Law of 1937 was repealed and reenacted in the Game Code, Act of July 8, 1986, P.L. 442, 34 Pa. C.S. §§101-2965. 8 The offense of unlawful use of vehicle was first established in the Game Law of 1937.

2019Id.

2018For instance, he urges this Court to adopt a standard applied in “federal court jurisprudence” in the context of “[p]re-trial agreements, such as cooperation agreements and proffer agreements….” Appellant’s Brief at 39-40 (citing United States v. Liranzo, 944 F.2d 73 , 77 (2nd Cir. 1991)).

2016There is no statutory authority for such a “rule” and, in any event, it would be contrary to the express provisions of 61 Pa. C.S. §6138(a)(2). 5 properly exercised its discretion in denying Holley credit for his street time and, in support, it directs this Court to its recent en banc decision in Pittman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 131 A.3d 604 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), appeal granted, __ A.3d __ (Pa., No. 90 MAL 2016, filed May 23, 2016).

2008In the present case, appellants claim that the Superior Court erred in vacating the PCRA court’s new trial order because the failure of trial counsel to request an of-record, oral jury waiver colloquy by the trial court involves a structural error that is not subject to the prejudice requirement of Strickland, 12 Appellants urge this Court to adopt the analysis in McGurk v. Stenberg, 163 F.3d 470 (8th Cir.1998), and rule that if counsel’s ineffectiveness causes a jury waiver that was neither knowing nor voluntary, the defendant does not have to establish that the outcome of the jury trial woul

2004Arguing the holdings in Patriot Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections (Patriot Party I), 95 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.1996), and Reform Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections (Patriot Party II), 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir.1999), Candidates urge this Court to adopt the analysis in those cases and to conclude that any statutory prohibition against Candidates’ running in Pennsylvania because of the Reform Party nomination would violate their equal protection rights inasmuch as no strong state interest would be served by denying Candidates ballot sta

2004Arguing the holdings in Patriot Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections (Patriot Party I), 95 F.3d 253 (3d Cir.1996), and Reform Party of Allegheny County v. Allegheny County Department of Elections (Patriot Party II), 174 F.3d 305 (3d Cir.1999), Candidates urge this Court to adopt the analysis in those cases and to conclude that any statutory prohibition against Candidates’ running in Pennsylvania because of the Reform Party nomination would violate their equal protection rights inasmuch as no strong state interest would be served by denying Candidates ballot sta

1985In Rodgers v. Chimney Rock Public Power District, 216 Neb. 666 , 345 N.W.2d 12 (1984), a negligence case, plaintiff had urged that the court adopt the doctrine of strict liability with respect to the distribution of electrical power and that the court consider electric power a product or “goods” so that the rules regarding implied warranties would be applicable.

1985In Rodgers v. Chimney Rock Public Power District, 216 Neb. 666 , 345 N.W.2d 12 (1984), a negligence case, plaintiff had urged that the court adopt the doctrine of strict liability with respect to the distribution of electrical power and that the court consider electric power a product or “goods” so that the rules regarding implied warranties would be applicable.

1944It has been reaffirmed in Erie Trust Company’s Case (No. 2), 326 Pa. 218 , 191 A. 584 , and Emlen’s Estate, 333 Pa. 238 , 4 A. 2d 143 .

1944It has been reaffirmed in Erie Trust Company’s Case (No. 2), 326 Pa. 218 , 191 A. 584 , and Emlen’s Estate, 333 Pa. 238 , 4 A. 2d 143 .

1944It has been reaffirmed in Erie Trust Company’s Case (No. 2), 326 Pa. 218 , 191 A. 584 , and Emlen’s Estate, 333 Pa. 238 , 4 A. 2d 143 .

1944It has been reaffirmed in Erie Trust Company’s Case (No. 2), 326 Pa. 218 , 191 A. 584 , and Emlen’s Estate, 333 Pa. 238 , 4 A. 2d 143 .

1926Not only have we no power to adopt the rule, but we know of nothing commending the commercial practice described by Mr. Justice Schaefer in Root v. Republic Acceptance Corp., supra, as “the camouflage of papers giving a *352 similitude of the passing of title.” Appellant was therefore not entitled to judgment n. o. v. We come, then, to the question, for whom should judgment have been entered on the whole record, and to the consideration of an additional element in the proceeding not yet mentioned.