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 2 courts 2015–2025 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. Spennygreen2 sentences2024We further observe that “[o]nce the court conducts an analysis of the elements of the foreign offense and finds the Pennsylvania offense that ‘is substantially identical in nature and definition’ to the out-of-state statute, the underlying record of the foreign offense may need to be considered for grading purposes.” Spenny, 128 A.3d at 250 (citations omitted). 2020See Spenny, 128 A.3d at 250 (stating, “[o]nce the court conducts an analysis of the elements of the foreign offense and finds the Pennsylvania offense that is substantially identical in nature and definition to the out-of-state statute, . . . the underlying record of the foreign offense may need to be considered for grading purposes.” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). intent to commit a crime therein.” See 18 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a) (1994 version). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Corrigangreen2 sentences2023The prosecutor may withdraw the ____________________________________________ 1 “[T]he Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court . .are the sole applicable criteria to govern the procedures for admission into the ARD program.” Commonwealth v. Corrigan, 992 A.2d 126, 131 (Pa.Super. 2010). 2 These Rules provide, inter alia, that after the defendant indicates an understanding of ARD and the Commonwealth presents the facts of the case, the judge either accepts the case for ARD and state the conditions of the program or declines to accept and orders that the case proceed in the ordinary fashion. 2023The prosecutor may withdraw the ____________________________________________ 1 “[T]he Rules promulgated by the Supreme Court . . are the sole applicable criteria to govern the procedures for admission into the ARD program.” Commonwealth v. Corrigan, 992 A.2d 126, 131 (Pa.Super. 2010). 2 These Rules provide, inter alia, that after the defendant indicates an understanding of ARD and the Commonwealth presents the facts of the case, the judge either accepts the case for ARD and state the conditions of the program or declines to accept and orders that the case proceed in the ordinary fashion. | 2 | 2 |
In re Consolidated return of Real Estate Tax Sale Held September 10green1 sentence2025In RETSL matters, “mere participation does not confer ‘party’ status on the participant.” In re Tax Sale Held Sept. 10, 2003 by Tax Claim Bureau of Cnty. of Lackawanna, 859 A.2d 15, 19 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Askewgreen1 sentence2016This Court has explained: “To deem an individual a[n SVP], the Commonwealth must first show [the individual] ‘has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as set forth in [section 9799.14] . . . .’” Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624, 629 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 954 ([Pa.]2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Boldengreen2 sentences2015See id. (stating that the record of the prior conviction is relevant for grading the offense under Pennsylvania law or when there are aggravating circumstances); see also Janda, 14 A.3d at 166 (remanding the case for the trial court to consider the record of the defendant’s pri- or New Jersey offense to determine whether the Pennsylvania equivalent of. writing bad checks, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4105, should be graded as a summary, misdemeanor' or felony for prior record score pmposes). 2015Once the court conducts an analysis of the elements of the foreign offense and finds the Pennsylvania offense that “is substantially identical in nature and definition” to the out-of-state statute,- Bolden, 532 A.2d at 1176 , the underlying record of the foreign offense may need to be considered for grading purposes. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jandagreen1 sentence2015See id. (stating that the record of the prior conviction is relevant for grading the offense under Pennsylvania law or when there are aggravating circumstances); see also Janda, 14 A.3d at 166 (remanding the case for the trial court to consider the record of the defendant’s pri- or New Jersey offense to determine whether the Pennsylvania equivalent of. writing bad checks, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4105, should be graded as a summary, misdemeanor' or felony for prior record score pmposes). | 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. Cline
green
2 sentences2023When such a recommendation is made, the trial court conducts a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 312 and 313 to determine whether the defendant understands ARD and agrees to its terms, whereupon it then decides to grant or deny ARD.2 Id. 2023When such a recommendation is made, the trial court conducts a hearing pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 312 and 313 to determine whether the defendant understands ARD and agrees to its terms, whereupon it then decides to grant or deny ARD.2 Id. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Wexford Science and Technology v. The City of Pittsburgh ZBA ~ Appeal of: Coltart Area Residents Association
green
1 sentence2025“Generally, the trial court conducts a hearing on a petition to intervene to allow the petitioner an opportunity to establish that the requirements for intervention have been met.” Wexford Sci. & Tech., LLC v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 260 A.3d 316 , 324-29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (concluding that the proposed intervenors established a legally enforceable interest under Rule 2327(4) but remanding for a hearing because trial court’s stated reasons for denying intervention under Rule 2329 required further factual development). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hayes v. School District
green
1 sentence2022P[a].R.C[iv].P. [] 2329 ([T]he trial court rules on [an] intervention petition “[u]pon the filing of the petition and after hearing[.]”) (emphasis added)[; s]ee also Hayes v. Sch[.] Dist[.] of Pittsburgh, . . . 381 A.2d 193 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1977). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
McLaughlin v. Centre County Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2019However, where a trial court conducts a hearing de novo, it must weigh the evidence and make its own findings of fact and conclusions of law, and this Court, in turn, reviews the decision of the trial court to determine whether “constitutional rights have been violated [or] whether the [trial] court manifestly abused its discretion or committed an error of law.” McLaughlin v. Centre County Housing Authority, 616 A.2d 1073 , 1074 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Com. v. Askew
green
1 sentence2016This Court has explained: “To deem an individual a[n SVP], the Commonwealth must first show [the individual] ‘has been convicted of a sexually violent offense as set forth in [section 9799.14] . . . .’” Commonwealth v. Askew, 907 A.2d 624, 629 (Pa.Super.2006), appeal denied, 919 A.2d 954 ([Pa.]2007). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.