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 5 courts 1919–2026 4 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. Roneygreen2 sentences2020Thus, in Bruton, the High Court created a narrow exception to the general legal principle that the jury is presumed to follow the court’s instructions. - 28 - J-S66024-19 Commonwealth v. Roney, 79 A.3d 595, 623-24 (Pa. 2013) (some citations omitted). 2020In Bruton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant “is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 776 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted). - 25 - J-S23011-20, J-S23012-20, J-S23013-20 The “per se Bruton rule” that a cautionary instruction cannot cure a violation of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights under certain circ | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Raineygreen1 sentence2020Nevertheless, redaction is “an appropriate method of protecting defendant’s rights under the Bruton decision.” Commonwealth v. Rainey, 928 A.2d 215, 227 (Pa. 2007) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jamesgreen1 sentence2020In Bruton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant “is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 776 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted). - 25 - J-S23011-20, J-S23012-20, J-S23013-20 The “per se Bruton rule” that a cautionary instruction cannot cure a violation of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights under certain circ | 1 | 1 |
Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.green2 sentences1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). 1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynskigreen2 sentences1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). 1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
Penelope Club Liquor License Casegreen2 sentences1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). 1979See Kuca v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 268 Pa. 163, 166 , 110 A. 731, 732 (1920); Universal Cyclops Steel Corp. v. Krawczynski, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 176, 183 , 305 A.2d 757, 761 (1973); Penelope Club Liquor License Case, 136 Pa. Superior Ct. 505, 513-14 , 7 A.2d 558, 562 (1939). | 1 | 1 |
Hostetter v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1972See Hostetter v. Commonwealth, 367 Pa. 603 , 80 A. 2d 719 (1951). 1972See Hostetter v. Commonwealth, 367 Pa. 603 , 80 A. 2d 719 (1951). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bruton v. United States
green
2 sentences2026Id. at 135-37 …; Richardson, supra at 206- 07 …. 2025Id. at 135-37 ; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 206-07 . | 4 | 2013–2026 |
Richardson v. Marsh
green
2 sentences2026Id. at 135-37 …; Richardson, supra at 206- 07 …. 2025Id. at 135-37 ; Richardson, 481 U.S. at 206-07 . | 4 | 2013–2026 |
Alden v. Maine
green
2 sentences2023After examining the relevant history and case law, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that this general legal principle was “universal” in terms of its recognition at the time that the United States Constitution was “drafted and ratified.” Id. at 716 . 2023After examining the relevant history and case law, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that this general legal principle was “universal” in terms of its recognition at the time that the United States Constitution was “drafted and ratified.” Id. at 716 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Brown
green
1 sentence2020In Bruton, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant “is deprived of his rights under the Confrontation Clause when his nontestifying codefendant’s confession naming him as a participant in the crime is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider that confession only against the codefendant.” Commonwealth v. James, 66 A.3d 771, 776 (Pa. Super. 2013) (some citations omitted). - 25 - J-S23011-20, J-S23012-20, J-S23013-20 The “per se Bruton rule” that a cautionary instruction cannot cure a violation of a defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights under certain circ | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Edmunds v. Duff
green
2 sentences1983These holdings of Commonwealth Court, we believe, are in line with the general legal principle that a court of equity may enjoin a nuisance before it occurs so long as the nuisance is demonstrated to be likely to occur: Edwards v. Duff, 280 Pa. 355 , 124 A. 489 (1924). 1983These holdings of Commonwealth Court, we believe, are in line with the general legal principle that a court of equity may enjoin a nuisance before it occurs so long as the nuisance is demonstrated to be likely to occur: Edwards v. Duff, 280 Pa. 355 , 124 A. 489 (1924). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lee's Estate
neutral
1 sentence1969In Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125 , 130 A. 2d 185 , the Court said (page 128-129) : “A codicil is a testamentary writing which is a supplement to a will and which expressly or by necessary implica *314 tion changes—i.e., alters, adds to or subtracts from— a prior will (or occasionally merely republishes it), but it does not purport to dispose of the entire estate or to contain the entire will of the testator, nor does it ordinarily expressly or by necessary implication revoke in toto a prior will: cf. Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553 , 94 A. 2d 721 ; Hunter, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Commonplace Book, | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Boyer Estate
green
2 sentences1969In Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125 , 130 A. 2d 185 , the Court said (page 128-129) : “A codicil is a testamentary writing which is a supplement to a will and which expressly or by necessary implica *314 tion changes—i.e., alters, adds to or subtracts from— a prior will (or occasionally merely republishes it), but it does not purport to dispose of the entire estate or to contain the entire will of the testator, nor does it ordinarily expressly or by necessary implication revoke in toto a prior will: cf. Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553 , 94 A. 2d 721 ; Hunter, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Commonplace Book, 1969In Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125 , 130 A. 2d 185 , the Court said (page 128-129) : “A codicil is a testamentary writing which is a supplement to a will and which expressly or by necessary implica *314 tion changes—i.e., alters, adds to or subtracts from— a prior will (or occasionally merely republishes it), but it does not purport to dispose of the entire estate or to contain the entire will of the testator, nor does it ordinarily expressly or by necessary implication revoke in toto a prior will: cf. Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553 , 94 A. 2d 721 ; Hunter, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Commonplace Book, | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Crooks Estate
green
2 sentences1969In Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125 , 130 A. 2d 185 , the Court said (page 128-129) : “A codicil is a testamentary writing which is a supplement to a will and which expressly or by necessary implica *314 tion changes—i.e., alters, adds to or subtracts from— a prior will (or occasionally merely republishes it), but it does not purport to dispose of the entire estate or to contain the entire will of the testator, nor does it ordinarily expressly or by necessary implication revoke in toto a prior will: cf. Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553 , 94 A. 2d 721 ; Hunter, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Commonplace Book, 1969In Crooks Estate, 388 Pa. 125 , 130 A. 2d 185 , the Court said (page 128-129) : “A codicil is a testamentary writing which is a supplement to a will and which expressly or by necessary implica *314 tion changes—i.e., alters, adds to or subtracts from— a prior will (or occasionally merely republishes it), but it does not purport to dispose of the entire estate or to contain the entire will of the testator, nor does it ordinarily expressly or by necessary implication revoke in toto a prior will: cf. Boyer Estate, 372 Pa. 553 , 94 A. 2d 721 ; Hunter, Pennsylvania Orphans’ Court Commonplace Book, | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Davey
green
1 sentence1919In attempting to reduce a general legal principle to a definite rule of action we prefer to adopt the language of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by a jurist of much experience and ability, Mr. Justice Harlan, in Insurance Co. v. Davey, 123 U. S. 739 : “If the substantial cause of the death of the insured was an excessive use of alcoholic stimulants......his health was impaired by intemperance within the meaning of the words ‘so far intemperate as to impair his health.’ ” This expression was after-wards repeated, with approval, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lamar when the same | 1 | 1919–1919 |
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward
green
1 sentence1919In attempting to reduce a general legal principle to a definite rule of action we prefer to adopt the language of the Supreme Court of the United States, speaking by a jurist of much experience and ability, Mr. Justice Harlan, in Insurance Co. v. Davey, 123 U. S. 739 : “If the substantial cause of the death of the insured was an excessive use of alcoholic stimulants......his health was impaired by intemperance within the meaning of the words ‘so far intemperate as to impair his health.’ ” This expression was after-wards repeated, with approval, in the opinion of Mr. Justice Lamar when the same | 1 | 1919–1919 |
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.