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.
10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2017 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. Koehlergreen2 sentences2014Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159, 227-28 , 36 A.3d 121, 162 (2012) (Saylor, J., concurring). 2014Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159, 227-28 , 36 A.3d 121, 162 (2012) (Saylor, J., concurring). | 5 | 5 |
Ring v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2009Capital defendant, no less than non-capital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment.” Ring, 536 U.S. at 588 , 122 S.Ct. at 2432 . 2009Capital defendant, no less than non-capital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment.” Ring, 536 U.S. at 588 , 122 S.Ct. at 2432 . | 1 | 2 |
Apprendi v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2004Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589, 602 , 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2432, 2439 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ("Capital defendants, no less than noncapital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment;” "If a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and overruling W 2004Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589, 602 , 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2432, 2439 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ("Capital defendants, no less than noncapital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment;” "If a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and overruling W | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wright v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2017Furthermore, Attorney Banta explained that “as a capital defense lawyer, my primary concern is getting the death penalty off the table.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Gwynn
green
2 sentences2009My position on this matter is reflected in the following statement from my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 596 Pa. 398 , 943 A.2d 940 (2008): I ... have favored the allowance of some time for McGill to become institutionalized among the capital bar, as we certainly have not seen immediate, consistent, or even ordinary compliance. 2009My position on this matter is reflected in the following statement from my dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Gwynn, 596 Pa. 398 , 943 A.2d 940 (2008): I ... have favored the allowance of some time for McGill to become institutionalized among the capital bar, as we certainly have not seen immediate, consistent, or even ordinary compliance. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Marinelli
green
2 sentences2009However, my personal tolerance expired in November 2006, with the issuance of [ Commonwealth v.] Marinelli, [ 589 Pa. 682 , 910 A.2d 672 (2006),] in which I indicated that I would no longer maintain a minority position supporting temporary leeway for briefs failing to meet McGill's specific requirements. 2009However, my personal tolerance expired in November 2006, with the issuance of [ Commonwealth v.] Marinelli, [ 589 Pa. 682 , 910 A.2d 672 (2006),] in which I indicated that I would no longer maintain a minority position supporting temporary leeway for briefs failing to meet McGill's specific requirements. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Walton v. Arizona
red
2 sentences2004Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589, 602 , 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2432, 2439 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ("Capital defendants, no less than noncapital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment;” "If a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and overruling W 2004Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589, 602 , 122 S.Ct. 2428, 2432, 2439 , 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002) ("Capital defendants, no less than noncapital defendants, we conclude, are entitled to a jury determination of any fact on which the legislature conditions an increase in their maximum punishment;” "If a State makes an increase in a defendant's authorized punishment contingent on the finding of a fact, that fact—no matter how the State labels it—must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (applying Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) and overruling W | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.