12 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2025 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. Chinegreen1 sentence2025Appellant’s ____________________________________________ 3 To the extent Appellant seeks that this Court make credibility determinations between his and Corporal Dobson’s testimony, “[I]t is not the role of an appellate court to reweigh the evidence, we will not disturb the jury’s credibility determinations . . . .” Commonwealth v. Chine, 40 A.3d 1239, 1244 (Pa. Super. 2012). -7- J-A06042-25 Br. at 19. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Myersgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Myers, 621 A.2d 1009 , 1013 (Pa. Super. 1993). 2022See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Myers, 621 A.2d 1009, 1013 (Pa. Super. 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2021See Williams, supra at 305-06 Second, recognizing the patent defect in her sufficiency of the evidence claim, Appellant contends that the Commonwealth’s evidence regarding the location of the crimes was unreliable absent the proposed jury instruction regarding the factual chain of events. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Cosby Jr., W.green1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372, 421 (Pa. Super. 2019), citing Parker, 104 A.3d at 29 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Pressleygreen2 sentences2006Specifically, the Supreme Court held “[t]he pertinent rules ... require a specific objection to the charge or an exception to the trial court’s ruling on a proposed point to preserve an issue involving a jury instruction.” Commonwealth v. Pressley, 584 Pa. 624 , 887 A.2d 220, 224 (2005) (footnote omitted). 2006Specifically, the Supreme Court held “[t]he pertinent rules ... require a specific objection to the charge or an exception to the trial court’s ruling on a proposed point to preserve an issue involving a jury instruction.” Commonwealth v. Pressley, 584 Pa. 624 , 887 A.2d 220, 224 (2005) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Johnston the Florist, Inc. v. TEDCO Construction Corp.green1 sentence2001Since entry of final judgment during the pendency of an appeal is sufficient to perfect our jurisdiction, see id. at 513, we will address the appeal on its merits and have corrected the caption accordingly. [2] Reed Chevrolet was dismissed from the action without prejudice by stipulation of the parties and with approval by the trial court on August 16, 1996. [3] We have paraphrased Ford's issues on appeal for ease of review. [4] Ford argues that the Stechers waived any alleged error in the trial court's instructions on the burden of proof by submitting a proposed jury instruction that Ford con | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Quickgreen1 sentence1982Cf. Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361, 366 , 17 S.Ct. 72, 73 , 41 L.Ed. 467 (1896); United States v. Quick, 128 F.2d 832, 835 (3d Cir.1942.) In agreeing to give the proposed jury instruction concerning the effect of reputation evidence the trial court ruled that Ms. Hall’s testimony constituted proper evidence of appellant’s reputation for good character. | 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. Parker
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2020Commonwealth v. Cosby, 224 A.3d 372, 421 (Pa. Super. 2019), citing Parker, 104 A.3d at 29 . | 2 | 2020–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Leaner
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 21-22. “[O]ur standard of review when considering the denial of jury instructions is one of deference—an appellate court will reverse a court's decision only when it abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” Commonwealth v. Leaner, 202 A.3d 749 , 782–783 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Connolly v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.
green
1 sentence2018See, ·e,g,, Cc5nnolly v. Philadelphia Transp; Cb., 420 Pa. 280�. 283,. 216: A.2d. 60,. 62 (1966) declaring "[�J common carrier ... owes its: passengers- the, highest: degree· of care." Hence, :'ehts.bµrgh: C.bau.:ff�ur did IJ.Ol object w.h�n I. proposed to· give P.e.nn.§ylva_ni� Suggested' Jury Instruction (Civil} n·o.13� 120- on a common. carrier's duty' of.care, At the, same time, Pittsburgh Chauffeur fo�_1ste.d. that: Mr, Deivert was negligent 1111d. that: the.verdict 'slip ask if he was negligent. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Brown
green
2 sentences2007The panel rejected the Commonwealth’s argument that the trial court’s proposed jury instruction was sufficient to cure any harm, finding that the argument “fail[ed] to appreciate the limited value of curative instructions in the context of a Bruton violation.” Id. 2007The panel rejected the Commonwealth's argument that the trial court's proposed jury instruction was sufficient to cure any harm, finding that the argument "fail[ed] to appreciate the limited value of curative instructions in the context of a Bruton violation." Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Mascaro v. Youth Study Center
green
2 sentences1994Mus-nuff further asserted that the trial court erred in omitting a proposed jury instruction on the issue of concurrent causes, and the trial court erred in explaining the law under Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118 (1987). 1994Mus-nuff further asserted that the trial court erred in omitting a proposed jury instruction on the issue of concurrent causes, and the trial court erred in explaining the law under Mascaro v. Youth Study Center, 514 Pa. 351 , 523 A.2d 1118 (1987). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Edgington v. United States
green
2 sentences1982Cf. Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361, 366 , 17 S.Ct. 72, 73 , 41 L.Ed. 467 (1896); United States v. Quick, 128 F.2d 832, 835 (3d Cir.1942.) In agreeing to give the proposed jury instruction concerning the effect of reputation evidence the trial court ruled that Ms. Hall’s testimony constituted proper evidence of appellant’s reputation for good character. 1982Cf. Edgington v. United States, 164 U.S. 361, 366 , 17 S.Ct. 72, 73 , 41 L.Ed. 467 (1896); United States v. Quick, 128 F.2d 832, 835 (3d Cir.1942.) In agreeing to give the proposed jury instruction concerning the effect of reputation evidence the trial court ruled that Ms. Hall’s testimony constituted proper evidence of appellant’s reputation for good character. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.