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 1979–2025 6 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. Libengoodgreen1 sentence2025See Libengood, supra. Consequently, we are constrained to conclude that the trial court erred in concluding that Green’s motion in limine was “untimely.” Nevertheless, here, the trial court did address the merits of Green’s motion in limine, and, as discussed infra, we discern no abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sojournergreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Sojourner, 408 A.2d 1108, 1113 (Pa. Super. 1979); see also id. at 1114 (“[W]e find it to be the preferable view, that the accused come forward with some credible evidence of authorization (assuming the government’s case-in-chief has not provided such evidence) before the government need negative authorization beyond a reasonable doubt.”). 2023See Commonwealth v. Sojourner, 408 A.2d 1108, 1113 (Pa. Super. 1979); see also id. at 1114 (“[W]e find it to be the preferable view, that the accused come forward with some credible evidence of authorization (assuming the government’s case-in-chief has not provided such evidence) before the government need negative authorization beyond a reasonable doubt.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Dawsongreen1 sentence2022See Dawson, 132 A.3d at 1005 ; see also Commonwealth’s Brief at 5. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Padilla-Vargasgreen1 sentence2022See Padilla-Vargas, 204 A.3d at 975-76 ; see also footnote 2, supra. Moreover, Green’s brief does not contain a separate Rule 2119(f) statement, and the Commonwealth has objected to this omission. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Williams , 69 A.3d 735 , 740 (Pa.Super. 2013) (finding claim "court imposed a sentence unreasonably disproportionate to her crimes and unduly excessive" raised substantial question). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Talbertgreen1 sentence2017See PCRA Court Opinion, 4/10/17, at 32-33; see also Commonwealth v. Talbert, 129 A.3d 536, 545 (Pa. Super. 2015) (stating that “[t]he weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, who is free to believe all, none or some of the evidence and to determine the credibility of the witnesses.” (citation and brackets omitted)). -8- J-S52015-17 discretion by pursuing a case against him based on corruption, prejudice and racism. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaamgreen1 sentence2017See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b); see also Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam, 808 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. 2001). | 1 | 1 |
Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp.green2 sentences1979See, Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 603, 607 , 136 A.2d 151, 153 (1957); Section 306(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. §512. 1979See, Ede v. Ruhe Motor Corp., 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 603, 607 , 136 A.2d 151, 153 (1957); Section 306(b) of the Act, 77 P.S. §512. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joyce v. Boulevard Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Center, P.C.
green
1 sentence2023Joyce, supra; Ryder Truck Rental; supra. Further, Green’s claim that the trial court erred in sustaining defense objections to the comparison of the G Street fill arms to other fill arms, see Appellant’s Brief, at 19, also affords Green no relief. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2021However, I would conclude no relief is due on Green’s issue concerning Pa.R.E. 404(b) prior bad acts evidence, where: (1) it was properly within the trial court’s discretion to weigh whether the prior incident had sufficient commonalities with the instant homicide to establish admissibility under Rule 404(b); (2) the court gave a proper jury instruction on the prior bad acts evidence; and (3) any error would ____________________________________________ 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). 2021However, I would conclude no relief is due on Green’s issue concerning Pa.R.E. 404(b) prior bad acts evidence, where: (1) it was properly within the trial court’s discretion to weigh whether the prior incident had sufficient commonalities with the instant homicide to establish admissibility under Rule 404(b); (2) the court gave a proper jury instruction on the prior bad acts evidence; and (3) any error would ____________________________________________ 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Seitel Data, Ltd. v. Center Township
green
1 sentence2021No. 213(f).8 See Seitel, 92 A.3d at 863-64 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Cottman
green
1 sentence2014Cottman, supra. -6- J-S44018-14 Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting Green’s motion to suppress, as the record does not support the trial court’s finding that Officers Goob and Fallert lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Gutierrez
green
1 sentence2014Gutierrez, supra. Order reversed. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.