Myers challenge (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

Myers challenge in Pennsylvania

10 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Com. v. Campbell, G.green
pasuperct · 2021 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See Campbell, supra. At the PCRA hearing, in explaining why he chose not to object to the Commonwealth’s request for another question, trial counsel stated that he believed the decision to permit the prosecutor to ask another question was within the trial court’s discretion and, therefore, he “believe[d] if [he had] objected, the [trial c]ourt would have overruled [his] objection [because] there [were] really not much grounds for [his] objection.” PCRA Hearing, 5/17/24, at 14.

11
Com. v. Hipps, D.green
pasuperct · 2022 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025See Hipps, supra. In his last claim, Myers contends that the PCRA court erred in denying his claim that trial counsel failed to object to the trial court’s instructions on the mistake-of-age defense for IDSI and indecent assault when Myers had not offered such a defense because he exercised his right to remain silent.

11
Commonwealth v. Gibbsgreen
pasuperct · 2009 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023See Gibbs, 981 A.2d at 281 .

11
Commonwealth v. Zeiglergreen
pasuperct · 2015 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022See Commowealth v. Zeigler, 112 A.3d 656, 661 (Pa. Super. 2015).

11
Windows, H. v. Erie Insurance Exchangegreen
pasuperct · 2017 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021See Windows, 161 A.3d at 957-60 . - 13 - J-A05028-21 * * * Any claim by Subcontractor that any change, changed condition, event or occurrence has affected or will affect in any fashion the work of the Subcontractor, including the time and cost of performance of the work, will be disallowed and is hereby expressly waived by the Subcontractor unless the Subcontractor provides (1) written notice of the change, event or occurrence and impact thereof to the Contractor within seventy two (72) hours of the change, event or occurrence; (2) an estimate of the cost and time impact of the change, event o

11
Alleyne v. United Statesgreen
· 2013 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017See Dissenting Opinion, slip op. at 8 n.8 (citing, inter alia, Alleyne v. United States, __ U.S. __, __, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013)). [J-94-2016][M.O. – Wecht, J.] - 3 refusing.

11
Gross v. Myersgreen
mont · 1987 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995Id. at 459-460.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Missouri v. McNeely green
scotus · 2013
2 sentences

2017Ct. 2015) (noting Myers’ challenge pursuant to Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). .

2017Ct. 2015) (noting Myers’ challenge pursuant to Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 , 133 S.Ct. 1552 , 185 L.Ed.2d 696 (2013)). .

22017–2017
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL green
pa · 1989
1 sentence

2018Id. at 164–205.

12018–2018
Commonwealth v. Myers green
pasuperct · 2015
1 sentence

2016Id. at 1124-1125 .

12016–2016
Commonwealth v. Brion green
pa · 1994
2 sentences

2002On appeal, Myers argued that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the tape since the Commonwealth had violated the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the ‘Wiretap Act”), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(ii), by failing to obtain an order based on probable cause from a Superior Court judge authorizing the recording, as required by Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256 , 652 A.2d 287 (1995).

2002On appeal, Myers argued that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the tape since the Commonwealth had violated the Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (the ‘Wiretap Act”), 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5704(2)(ii), by failing to obtain an order based on probable cause from a Superior Court judge authorizing the recording, as required by Commonwealth v. Brion, 539 Pa. 256 , 652 A.2d 287 (1995).

12002–2002

Where else courts name it

OH 13 (1997–2026) IN 11 (1981–2023) PA 10 (1995–2025) AK 9 (1979–2024) MD 9 (1990–2019) KS 8 (1991–2020) CA 6 (1981–2004) MS 6 (2000–2023) LA 5 (1969–2009) WA 5 (1998–2018) SC 4 (2016–2017) IL 4 (1976–2002) MI 3 (1906–2019) IA 3 (2000–2016) NE 3 (1999–2020) FL 3 (2006–2017) MA 3 (2000–2013) HI 3 (1992–1996) TX 3 (2015–2025) NJ 3 (1991–2026) ND 2 (1995–2001) AR 2 (1949–1994) WI 2 (1993–2005) ME 2 (1982–2015) ID 2 (1988–1992) OK 2 (2005–2006) MO 2 (2011–2025) DC 2 (2001–2013) AL 2 (2009–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check