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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1998–2018 0 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. McNabbgreen2 sentences2018Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa.Super. 2003). 2015Nevertheless, an appellant raises a substantial question where he alleges an excessive sentence due to the court’s reliance on impermissible factors. -6- J-S78005-14 Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa.Super. 2003). | 3 | 9 |
Commonwealth v. Shellergreen1 sentence2016S69030/16 substantial question when he avers an excessive sentence due to the court’s reliance on impermissible factors); Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 190 (Pa. Super. 2008) (holding that an “[a]ppellant’s contention that the sentencing court exceeded the recommended range in the Sentencing Guidelines without an adequate basis raises a substantial question for this Court to review.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Reynoldsgreen1 sentence2015Likewise, “[a]n allegation that a judge ‘failed to offer specific reasons for [a] sentence does raise a substantial question.’” Dunphy, supra at 1222 (quoting Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 734 (Pa.Super. 2003)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hoovergreen1 sentence2015Commonwealth v. McNabb, 819 A.2d 54 (Pa.Super. 2003). -5- J-S37008-15 “In general, the imposition of sentence following the revocation of probation is vested within the sound discretion of the trial court, which, absent an abuse of that discretion, will not be disturbed on appeal.” Commonwealth v. Hoover, 909 A.2d 321, 322 (Pa.Super. 2006). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mickellgreen2 sentences1998This presents a substantial question.- See Commonwealth v. Mickell, 409 Pa.Super. 595 , 598 A.2d 1003, 1007 (1991). 1998This presents a substantial question.- See Commonwealth v. Mickell, 409 Pa.Super. 595 , 598 A.2d 1003, 1007 (1991). | 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. Dunphy
green
1 sentence2015Likewise, “[a]n allegation that a judge ‘failed to offer specific reasons for [a] sentence does raise a substantial question.’” Dunphy, supra at 1222 (quoting Commonwealth v. Reynolds, 835 A.2d 720, 734 (Pa.Super. 2003)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.