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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Adoption of S.E.G.green2 sentences2016See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(i); see also In re Adoption of S.E.G., 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006), where involuntary termination occurred prior to a goal change by the county agency. 2015See 42 Pa.C.S. § 6351(i); see also In re Adoption of S.E.G., [ 587 Pa. 568 , ] 901 A.2d 1017 (Pa. 2006), where involuntary termination occurred prior to a goal change by the county agency. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Swopegreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Swope, 123 A.3d 333, 339 (Pa. Super. 2015) (finding that a combined claim of excessiveness and failure to consider certain factors presented a substantial question). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen1 sentence2022See Raven, supra; Caldwell, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2) (this Court shall vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it finds that “the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable”); but see Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 , 918-19 & n.12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that a defendant who received a standard-range sentence did not raise a substantial question when challenging the sentencing court’s alleged failure to consider mitigating factors); Commonwealth v | 1 | 1 |
Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beckgreen2 sentences2014See Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884-85 (Alaska 1979) superseded in part by Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 (1986); accord Soule, supra. A second approach is to incorporate the risk calculus into a test of consumer expectations or, vice versa, to incorporate consumer expectations into the risk-utility determination. 2014See Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884-85 (Alaska 1979) superseded in part by Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 (1986); accord Soule, supra. A second approach is to incorporate the risk calculus into a test of consumer expectations or, vice versa, to incorporate consumer expectations into the risk-utility determination. | 1 | 1 |
Soule v. General Motors Corp.green1 sentence2014See Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Beck, 593 P.2d 871, 884-85 (Alaska 1979) superseded in part by Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 (1986); accord Soule, supra. A second approach is to incorporate the risk calculus into a test of consumer expectations or, vice versa, to incorporate consumer expectations into the risk-utility determination. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2007Commonwealth v. Wilson, 551 Pa. 593 , 712 A.2d 735, 737 (1998). 2007Commonwealth v. Wilson, 551 Pa. 593 , 712 A.2d 735, 737 (1998). | 1 | 1 |
Rothman v. JACOBSgreen2 sentences1980See Rothman v. Jacobs, 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 259 , 392 A.2d 903 (1978). 1980See Rothman v. Jacobs, 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 259 , 392 A.2d 903 (1978). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Rhoadesgreen1 sentence2022See Raven, supra; Caldwell, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2) (this Court shall vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it finds that “the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable”); but see Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 , 918-19 & n.12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that a defendant who received a standard-range sentence did not raise a substantial question when challenging the sentencing court’s alleged failure to consider mitigating factors); Commonwealth v | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence2022See Raven, supra; Caldwell, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(c)(2) (this Court shall vacate a sentence and remand for resentencing if it finds that “the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable”); but see Commonwealth v. Rhoades, 8 A.3d 912 , 918-19 & n.12 (Pa. Super. 2010) (concluding that a defendant who received a standard-range sentence did not raise a substantial question when challenging the sentencing court’s alleged failure to consider mitigating factors); Commonwealth v | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In the Interest of R.J.T.
green
1 sentence2017In Re RJ, T., 608 Pa. 9 , 9 A.3d 1179 , 1190 n. 14 (201 O}. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Powell v. EMIGRANT MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.
green
1 sentence2017In Re RJ, T., 608 Pa. 9 , 9 A.3d 1179 , 1190 n. 14 (201 O}. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.