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 3 courts 1935–2003 0 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. Stoffangreen2 sentences1993In Commonwealth v. Saccol, 384 Pa.Super. 161 , 557 A.2d 1095 (1989), this Court analyzed a similar burden-of-proof issue: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception, but if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely se 1993In Commonwealth v. Saccol, 384 Pa.Super. 161 , 557 A.2d 1095 (1989), this Court analyzed a similar burden-of-proof issue: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception, but if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely se | 2 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Nealgreen2 sentences1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t 1989In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred to elements of charged crimes, this court enunciated the following test: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the excep | 2 | 6 |
United States v. Branch D. Kloessgreen2 sentences2003Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. at 140 , 323 A.2d at 324 (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922)); accord United States v. Kloess, 251 F.3d 941 , 945 (11th Cir.2001) (explaining that the appearance of the contested language "in a distinct clause, in a different section of the statute[,] suggests that it is not an element of the crime"); United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (5th Cir.1981) (where "an exception ... [is] so necessary to a true definition of the offense ... the elements of the crime are not fully stated without the exception"). [2] I recognize that many of the fact 2003Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. at 140 , 323 A.2d at 324 (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922)); accord United States v. Kloess, 251 F.3d 941, 945 (11th Cir.2001) (explaining that the appearance of the contested language "in a distinct clause, in a different section of the statute),] suggests that it is not an element of the crime”); United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (5th Cir.1981) (where "an exception ... [is] so necessary to a true definition of the offense ... the elements of the crime are not fully stated without the exception”). . | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James E. Outlerred2 sentences2003Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. at 140 , 323 A.2d at 324 (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922)); accord United States v. Kloess, 251 F.3d 941 , 945 (11th Cir.2001) (explaining that the appearance of the contested language "in a distinct clause, in a different section of the statute[,] suggests that it is not an element of the crime"); United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (5th Cir.1981) (where "an exception ... [is] so necessary to a true definition of the offense ... the elements of the crime are not fully stated without the exception"). [2] I recognize that many of the fact 2003Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. at 140 , 323 A.2d at 324 (quoting Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922)); accord United States v. Kloess, 251 F.3d 941, 945 (11th Cir.2001) (explaining that the appearance of the contested language "in a distinct clause, in a different section of the statute),] suggests that it is not an element of the crime”); United States v. Outler, 659 F.2d 1306, 1309-10 (5th Cir.1981) (where "an exception ... [is] so necessary to a true definition of the offense ... the elements of the crime are not fully stated without the exception”). . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bigelowgreen2 sentences1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t 1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t | 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. Banellis
green
1 sentence2000The clause, “Except when directed to proceed by a police officer ...” directly precedes the words “every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign shall stop....” Against the wording of this statute, it is obvious that the “except clause” is not divorced from the definition. 682 A.2d at 386-87 . ¶ 9 Consistent with the dictates of Lopez, Bigelow, Banellis and the precepts of statutory construction, we conclude that the grammatical structure and syntax of the 1999 version of Section 6106(a)(1) & (2), 7 both being devoid of substantive language or self-contained definitional verbiage require r | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Commonwealth v. Saccol
green
2 sentences1993In Commonwealth v. Saccol, 384 Pa.Super. 161 , 557 A.2d 1095 (1989), this Court analyzed a similar burden-of-proof issue: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception, but if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely se 1993In Commonwealth v. Saccol, 384 Pa.Super. 161 , 557 A.2d 1095 (1989), this Court analyzed a similar burden-of-proof issue: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the exception is omitted, the rules of good pleading require that an indictment founded upon the statute must allege enough to show that the accused is not within the exception, but if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely se | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Com. of Pa. v. Fahey
green
2 sentences1935It will be noted that under the above sections, the ingredients of the offense, to wit, the unlawful keeping, can be proven without reference to the exceptions. ££When a statute defining an offense contains an exception in the enacting clause......and if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely separable from the exception that the ingredients constituting the offense may be accurately and clearly defined without any reference to the exception, the pleader may safely omit any such reference, as the matter contained in the exception is matter of defense and must be shown b 1935It will be noted that under the above sections, the ingredients of the offense, to wit, the unlawful keeping, can be proven without reference to the exceptions. ££When a statute defining an offense contains an exception in the enacting clause......and if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely separable from the exception that the ingredients constituting the offense may be accurately and clearly defined without any reference to the exception, the pleader may safely omit any such reference, as the matter contained in the exception is matter of defense and must be shown b | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Commonwealth v. Finch
neutral
1 sentence1935It will be noted that under the above sections, the ingredients of the offense, to wit, the unlawful keeping, can be proven without reference to the exceptions. ££When a statute defining an offense contains an exception in the enacting clause......and if the language of the clause defining the offense is so entirely separable from the exception that the ingredients constituting the offense may be accurately and clearly defined without any reference to the exception, the pleader may safely omit any such reference, as the matter contained in the exception is matter of defense and must be shown b | 1 | 1935–1935 |
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.