Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1911–2025 10 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, Aplt. v. Carrasquillo, J.green2 sentences2025There are several considerations that factor into a decision on a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) “there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea;” (2) “trial courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal request will be granted;” (3) “such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused;” and (4) “any demonstration by a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.” Norton, 201 A.3d at 116 (quoting Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1 2022The following considerations govern the decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a plea: (1) “there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea;” (2) “trial courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal request will be granted;” (3) “such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused;” and (4) “any demonstration by a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.” -5- J-A26021-21 Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112 , 116 (Pa. 2019) (quoting Commo | 3 | 8 |
Commonwealth v. Norton, M., Aplt.green2 sentences2025There are several considerations that factor into a decision on a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) “there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea;” (2) “trial courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal request will be granted;” (3) “such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused;” and (4) “any demonstration by a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.” Norton, 201 A.3d at 116 (quoting Commonwealth v. Carrasquillo, 115 A.3d 1284, 1 2022The following considerations govern the decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a plea: (1) “there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea;” (2) “trial courts have discretion in determining whether a withdrawal request will be granted;” (3) “such discretion is to be administered liberally in favor of the accused;” and (4) “any demonstration by a defendant of a fair-and-just reason will suffice to support a grant, unless withdrawal would work substantial prejudice to the Commonwealth.” -5- J-A26021-21 Commonwealth v. Norton, 201 A.3d 112 , 116 (Pa. 2019) (quoting Commo | 3 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Hancharikgreen2 sentences1997Basically, under section 5915, “should the defense attack a spouse's character or conduct, the attacked spouse is a competent witness and may testify even to confidential communications,” Newman, 534 Pa. at 430-32 , 633 A.2d at 1072 ; see Hancharik, 534 Pa. at 440-42 , 633 A.2d at 1077 ("The sole exception to this rule is that a husband or wife is competent to testify to rebut a defense based upon grounds that attack his or her character or conduct[;] [i]n such a case, the testimony could encompass confidential communications.”). . 1997Basically, under section 5915, “should the defense attack a spouse's character or conduct, the attacked spouse is a competent witness and may testify even to confidential communications,” Newman, 534 Pa. at 430-32 , 633 A.2d at 1072 ; see Hancharik, 534 Pa. at 440-42 , 633 A.2d at 1077 ("The sole exception to this rule is that a husband or wife is competent to testify to rebut a defense based upon grounds that attack his or her character or conduct[;] [i]n such a case, the testimony could encompass confidential communications.”). . | 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. Newman
green
2 sentences1997Basically, under section 5915, “should the defense attack a spouse's character or conduct, the attacked spouse is a competent witness and may testify even to confidential communications,” Newman, 534 Pa. at 430-32 , 633 A.2d at 1072 ; see Hancharik, 534 Pa. at 440-42 , 633 A.2d at 1077 ("The sole exception to this rule is that a husband or wife is competent to testify to rebut a defense based upon grounds that attack his or her character or conduct[;] [i]n such a case, the testimony could encompass confidential communications.”). . 1997Basically, under section 5915, “should the defense attack a spouse's character or conduct, the attacked spouse is a competent witness and may testify even to confidential communications,” Newman, 534 Pa. at 430-32 , 633 A.2d at 1072 ; see Hancharik, 534 Pa. at 440-42 , 633 A.2d at 1077 ("The sole exception to this rule is that a husband or wife is competent to testify to rebut a defense based upon grounds that attack his or her character or conduct[;] [i]n such a case, the testimony could encompass confidential communications.”). . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Deihm v. Snell
green
1 sentence1911If such a claim were made at the trial, it is doubtless true that, under the authority of Deihm v. Snell, 119 Pa. 316 , no judgment would probably be entered upon a certificate in his favor rendered by the jury; but this is not the claim and the facts contained in the affidavit, if made good at the trial, would only extinguish the amount claimed by the plaintiff. | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.