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 2 courts 2017–2026 5 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. Rushgreen2 sentences2022The exception is demanding . . ., requiring nearly unique factual circumstances in the commission of a crime, so as to effectively eliminate the possibility that it could have been committed by anyone [else] . . ..”); Commonwealth v. Hicks, 156 A.3d 1114 , 1125–26 (Pa. 2017) (observing that “[i]n further explaining the logical connection standard, this Court has noted [that] much more is demanded than the mere repeated commission of crimes of the same class, such as repeated burglaries or thefts”) (internal citation and quotations omitted); cf. Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557, 561 (Pa. 1994 2018The device used must be so unusual or distinctive as to be like a signature.” Id. at 1125-1126 , quoting Commonwealth v. Rush, 646 A.2d 557, 560-61 (Pa. 1994) (emphasis added). | 5 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Hicks, C., Aplt.green2 sentences2026But for ease of reference, I refer to that opinion as the “majority” or “Majority Opinion.” 2 In Hicks, we articulated the logical connection test as follows: “In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible, its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice against the defendant, Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), and a comparison of the crimes proffered must show a logical connection between them and the crime currently charged.” 156 A.3d at 1125 ; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d 1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995) (“In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible under th[e common pl 2026But for ease of reference, I refer to that opinion as the “majority” or “Majority Opinion.” 2 In Hicks, we articulated the logical connection test as follows: “In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible, its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice against the defendant, Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), and a comparison of the crimes proffered must show a logical connection between them and the crime currently charged.” 156 A.3d at 1125 ; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d 1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995) (“In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible under th[e common pl | 4 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Millergreen2 sentences2026But for ease of reference, I refer to that opinion as the “majority” or “Majority Opinion.” 2 In Hicks, we articulated the logical connection test as follows: “In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible, its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice against the defendant, Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), and a comparison of the crimes proffered must show a logical connection between them and the crime currently charged.” 156 A.3d at 1125 ; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d 1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995) (“In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible under th[e common pl 2026But for ease of reference, I refer to that opinion as the “majority” or “Majority Opinion.” 2 In Hicks, we articulated the logical connection test as follows: “In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible, its probative value must outweigh its potential for unfair prejudice against the defendant, Pa.R.E. 404(b)(2), and a comparison of the crimes proffered must show a logical connection between them and the crime currently charged.” 156 A.3d at 1125 ; see also Commonwealth v. Miller, 664 A.2d 1310, 1318 (Pa. 1995) (“In order for other crimes evidence to be admissible under th[e common pl | 3 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Christine
green
2 sentences2026Consider Arrington, where pursuant to the logical connection test, we held it was part of the defendant’s “common plan or scheme” that he “resorted to violence when his partner wanted to end a relationship or interacted with other men.” 86 A.3d at 844 . 2026Consider Arrington, where pursuant to the logical connection test, we held it was part of the defendant’s “common plan or scheme” that he “resorted to violence when his partner wanted to end a relationship or interacted with other men.” 86 A.3d at 844 . | 5 | 2017–2026 |
Shaffner v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2019The device used must be so unusual or distinctive as to be like a signature.’ ” Id. at 1125–26 (some citations omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.