10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Spotzgreen1 sentence2023“Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.” Com[monwealth] v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1210 ([Pa.] 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 ([Pa.] 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Yorkgreen1 sentence2018See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667, 671 (Pa. Super. 2009) (argument waived where the appellant does not “even allege that he raised the issue at the suppression hearing”); Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028, 1032 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citation omitted) (“[A] new and different theory of relief may not be successfully advanced for the first time on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2018See also Commonwealth v. Williams, 980 A.2d 667, 671 (Pa. Super. 2009) (argument waived where the appellant does not “even allege that he raised the issue at the suppression hearing”); Commonwealth v. York, 465 A.2d 1028, 1032 (Pa. Super. 1983) (citation omitted) (“[A] new and different theory of relief may not be successfully advanced for the first time on appeal.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Freemangreen1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deeming issue waived, in part, because “when the trial court asked [the appellant] to state his basis for requesting suppression on the record at the commencement of the suppression hearing, [the appellant] did not raise such an argument”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Bartee, 868 A.2d 1218 , 1221 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finding waiver, in part, where the appellant presented no - 12 - J-S39010-17 argument on the issue at the suppression hearing). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Levanduskigreen1 sentence2013See Levanduski, supra. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence2025Co., 889 A.2d 563 , 577 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citations omitted). - 10 - J-S48040-24 Finally, we address Appellant’s argument that his detention after the gun was found was illegal under Hicks. “[T]he Commonwealth notes that [Appellant] never raised this issue at the suppression hearing before the trial court.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 11. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Tilley
green
1 sentence2023“Counsel will not be deemed ineffective for failing to raise a meritless claim.” Com[monwealth] v. Spotz, 896 A.2d 1191, 1210 ([Pa.] 2006) (citing Commonwealth v. Tilley, 780 A.2d 649 ([Pa.] 2001)). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Bartee
green
1 sentence2017See Commonwealth v. Freeman, 128 A.3d 1231, 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (deeming issue waived, in part, because “when the trial court asked [the appellant] to state his basis for requesting suppression on the record at the commencement of the suppression hearing, [the appellant] did not raise such an argument”) (citation omitted); Commonwealth v. Bartee, 868 A.2d 1218 , 1221 n.6 (Pa. Super. 2005) (finding waiver, in part, where the appellant presented no - 12 - J-S39010-17 argument on the issue at the suppression hearing). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Payton v. New York
green
1 sentence2014Id. 3 Wright misconstrues our holding in his direct appeal. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Hawkins
green
1 sentence2014Further, in Commonwealth v. Hawkins, 718 A.2d 265 , 268 n.3 (Pa. 1998), our Supreme Court stated, e, however, our cases place the burden squarely upon the defendant seeking suppression to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy as an Commonwealth did not waive this position in neglecting to raise the issue at the suppression hearing. -5- J-A09007-14 the suppression court, Appellee met three of the four standing factors and therefore had an expectation of privacy in the area searched. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Gribble
green
2 sentences1999Id. 1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Commonwealth v. Sopota
green
2 sentences1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Sopota, 403 Pa.Super. 1 , 587 A.2d 805 (1991) (en banc) (when the trial court elects to address an issue on its merits, we will not deem the issue waived on appeal). . 1997Cf. Commonwealth v. Sopota, 403 Pa.Super. 1 , 587 A.2d 805 (1991) (en banc) (when the trial court elects to address an issue on its merits, we will not deem the issue waived on appeal). . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Commonwealth v. Futch
green
2 sentences1975However, 'appellant failed to raise this issue at the suppression hearing which occurred six months after the announcement of our decision in Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389 , 290 A.2d 417 (1972). 1975However, 'appellant failed to raise this issue at the suppression hearing which occurred six months after the announcement of our decision in Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389 , 290 A.2d 417 (1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.