68 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1966–2024 9 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. Pandergreen2 sentences2020A PCRA petitioner is not required to provide an affidavit from the proposed witness, and instead, “the certification requirement can be met by an attorney or pro se petitioner certifying what the witness will testify regarding.” Id. at 642 (citations omitted). - 10 - J-S23029-20 With respect to Appellant’s claim that Trial Counsel were ineffective for not investigating Bond, neither his PCRA petition nor appellate brief specify any new information that would have been gained from such an investigation. 2018Additionally, “the certification requirement can be met by an attorney or pro se petitioner certifying what the witness will testify regarding.” Commonwealth v. Pander, 100 A.3d 626, 642 (Pa. 2014). | 5 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Spuckgreen2 sentences2023Pa.R.A.P. 2135(a)(1), (d).11 Notably, Appellant’s brief does not contain "a certificate of compliance with the word count limit," as required by Rule 2135(a)(1) and (d).12 “The certification requirement is not limited to counsel: Pro se litigants, too, are obliged to provide a certification for a primary brief that exceeds thirty pages.” Commonwealth v. Spuck, 86 A.3d 870, 873 (Pa. Super. 2014) (citation omitted). 2019"The certification requirement is not limited to counsel: Pro se litigants, too, are *511 obliged to provide a certification for a primary brief that exceeds thirty pages." Commonwealth v. Spuck , 86 A.3d 870 , 873 (Pa. Super. 2014), citing Pa.R.A.P. 2135(d) ("[T]he attorney or the unrepresented filing party shall include a certification that the brief complies with the word count limits." (emphasis added) ). | 2 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Browngreen2 sentences2020Commonwealth v. Brown, 767 A.2d 576, 583 (Pa.Super. 2001). “[T]he certification requirement can be met by an attorney or pro se petitioner certifying what the witness will testify - 10 - J-S07025-20 regarding[;]” the certification requirement can also be met by the proposed witness or the witness’ attorney. 2018Brown, 767 A.2d at 583 ; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(d)(1); Pa.R.Crim.P. 902(A)(15). | 2 | 3 |
Goodman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parolegreen2 sentences2024Rather, the sole purpose of a certification hearing, as established by the Juvenile Act, is to determine “if there is a prima facie case that the child committed the delinquent act alleged, the delinquent act would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, and if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the public interest would be served by the transfer of the case for criminal prosecution.” Commonwealth v. In re E.F., 995 A.2d 326, 329 (Pa. 2010). 2021Id. at 328. | 2 | 2 |
DiLucido v. Terminix International, Inc.green2 sentences2005The purpose behind this “requirement is to determine whether the class representatives’ overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members, to ensure that the pursuit of their interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” DiLucido v. Terminix International Inc., 450 Pa. Super. 393, 404 , 676 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1996). 2005The purpose behind this “requirement is to determine whether the class representatives’ overall position on the common issues is sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members, to ensure that the pursuit of their interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” DiLucido v. Terminix International Inc., 450 Pa. Super. 393, 404 , 676 A.2d 1237, 1242 (1996). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Mossgreen2 sentences2005Due to the deficiency of the record of the initial juvenile hearing, we are constrained to remand the case for a new certification hearing to determine whether Appellant’s waiver into the adult court was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. ¶ 5 When evaluating the certification decision of the juvenile court, we are mindful that: The Superior Court must not upset the certification decision of a juvenile court unless the court has either failed to provide “specific reasons for its conclusion that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment” or “the court committed a gross abuse of discretion.” Com 2005Due to the deficiency of the record of the initial juvenile hearing, we are constrained to remand the case for a new certification hearing to determine whether Appellant’s waiver into the adult court was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. ¶ 5 When evaluating the certification decision of the juvenile court, we are mindful that: The Superior Court must not upset the certification decision of a juvenile court unless the court has either failed to provide “specific reasons for its conclusion that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment” or “the court committed a gross abuse of discretion.” Com | 2 | 2 |
Cook v. Highland Water & S. Auth.green2 sentences2002This requires that the “class representatives’ overall position on the common issues [be] sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that pursuit of [those] interests will advance those of the proposed class members.” Cook, 530 A.2d at 505, n. 8 . 2002This requires that the "class representatives' overall position on the common issues [be] sufficiently aligned with that of the absent class members to ensure that pursuit of [those] interests will advance those of the proposed class members." Cook, 530 A.2d at 505, n. 8 . | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Beygreen2 sentences1985In Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa.Super. 185 , 375 A.2d 1304 (1977), the defendant was convicted of rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in the criminal court after being certified as a juvenile. 1985In Commonwealth v. Bey, 249 Pa.Super. 185 , 375 A.2d 1304 (1977), the defendant was convicted of rape and involuntary deviate sexual intercourse in the criminal court after being certified as a juvenile. | 1 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Stokesgreen2 sentences2024See also Commonwealth v. Lux, 445 A.2d 185 (Pa. Super. 1982) (when record did not indicate that juvenile division judge properly considered child’s amenability to treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation when certifying his case for trial in adult criminal court, case was remanded for a new certification hearing, and judgment of sentence entered after trial was vacated, pending the outcome of the new certification hearing); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 421 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1980) (same). 2005Due to the deficiency of the record of the initial juvenile hearing, we are constrained to remand the case for a new certification hearing to determine whether Appellant’s waiver into the adult court was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. ¶ 5 When evaluating the certification decision of the juvenile court, we are mindful that: The Superior Court must not upset the certification decision of a juvenile court unless the court has either failed to provide “specific reasons for its conclusion that the juvenile is not amenable to treatment” or “the court committed a gross abuse of discretion.” Com | 1 | 2 |
In re Deleviegreen2 sentences2024Furthermore, Appellant highlights that there was testimony that Dr. Tenthoff was the cause of his harm, arguing that “[b]ased on the evidence in Appellant’s case-in-chief, a reasonable jury could have easily concluded Appellees’ failure to properly diagnose, treat, and manage Appellant’s ____________________________________________ 4 “The certification requirement is not limited to counsel: Pro se litigants, too, are obliged to provide a certification for a primary brief that exceeds thirty pages.” In re deLevie, 204 A.3d 505, 510-11 (Pa.Super. 2019). 2022“The certification requirement is not limited to counsel: Pro se litigants, too, are obliged to provide a certification for a primary brief that exceeds thirty pages.” In re Delevie, 204 A.3d 505, 510-11 (Pa. Super. 2019) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Luxgreen2 sentences2024See also Commonwealth v. Lux, 445 A.2d 185 (Pa. Super. 1982) (when record did not indicate that juvenile division judge properly considered child’s amenability to treatment, supervision, or rehabilitation when certifying his case for trial in adult criminal court, case was remanded for a new certification hearing, and judgment of sentence entered after trial was vacated, pending the outcome of the new certification hearing); Commonwealth v. Stokes, 421 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 1980) (same). 1982In Commonwealth v. Lux, 299 Pa.Superior Ct. 136, 445 A.2d 185 (1982) a panel of this court vacated the transfer order and remanded for a new certification hearing because there was not an adequate demonstration of nonamenability. | 1 | 2 |
Weinberg v. Sun Company, Inc.green2 sentences2004Weinberg v. Sun Company Inc., 740 A.2d 1152, 1171 (Pa. Super. 1999), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 565 Pa. 612 , 777 A.2d 442 (2001). (5) Class Action Provides a Fair and Efficient Method for Adjudication The final prerequisite for class certification is whether a class action provides a fair and efficient method for adjudication of the controversy under the criteria set forth in Rule 1708. 2002Weinberg, 740 A.2d at 1162 . ¶ 12 Despite having broad discretion and liberal license, Rule 1707 does limit the court’s inquiries at the certification hearing: The hearing is confined to a consideration of the class action allegations and is not concerned with the merits of the controversy or with attacks on the other averments of the complaint. | 1 | 2 |
Griffin v. Californiagreen1 sentence2024See Griffin, 380 U.S. at 614 . | 1 | 1 |
Mazza v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen1 sentence2021“An administrative agency is a creature of statute and cannot exercise powers that are not explicitly given to it by the legislature.” Mazza v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 692 A.2d 251, 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Prestongreen1 sentence2018As we require a complete record to decide the issues, and may not consider documents not included in the certified record, see Commonwealth v. Preston, 904 A.2d 1, 7 (Pa.Super. 2006) (en banc), we ordered the trial court to supplement the record with the requisite portions of the juvenile case file. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Roneygreen1 sentence2015See Pa.R.A.P. 2135(d) (‘[T]he attorney or the unrepresented filing party shall include a certification that the brief complies with the word count limits.’ (emphasis added).” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Popowsky v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissiongreen2 sentences2011Id., 594 Pa. at 610-11 , 937 A.2d at 1056-57 (emphasis added). 2011Id., 594 Pa. at 610-11 , 937 A.2d at 1056-57 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rauch v. United Instruments, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cribb v. United Health Clubs Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Dolgow v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Miller v. Federal Kemper Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Prince George Center, Inc. v. United States Gypsum Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Buehlgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Duncanred | 1 | 1 |
| Seibel v. Allstate Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Pelkeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kruth v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re HOTEL TELEPHONE CHARGESgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Sextongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. MacKeygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allegheny Beverage Corp. v. Conel Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Wadegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Coleman v. Alabamagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kent v. United States
green
2 sentences2024The Commonwealth contended that this would be akin to what the United States Supreme Court did to cure an improper waiver of a juvenile’s case to adult criminal court in the case of Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), 10 discussed at greater length herein, and that such a course of action was appropriate because “the structure of District of Columbia and Pennsylvania laws in this regard are similar, and . . . should be interpreted similarly.” Taylor III, slip op. at 21. 10 Briefly, in Kent, a juvenile who was arrested in the District of Columbia (D.C.) and charged with multiple crimes 1983In order to comply with the statute, the lower court need not make a formal statement or conventional findings of fact but "the statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that . . . the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review." Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966). | 4 | 1973–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Greiner
green
2 sentences2024Id. 1985In Commonwealth v. Greiner, 479 Pa. 364 , 388 A.2d 698 (1978), the appellant was convicted of criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, attempted kidnapping and aggravated assault; he appealed the judgment of sentence of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. | 3 | 1980–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Sexton
green
2 sentences1984This was so even though at the certification hearing “[the defendant] was the only young and black male in the courtroom where [the] case was announced by his name and the complaintant, while never having viewed [the defendant] in a non-suggestive setting, had been given [the defendant’s] name by the police.” Id., 485 Pa. at 22 n. 4, 400 A.2d at 1292 n. 4. 1984This was so even though at the certification hearing “[the defendant] was the only young and black male in the courtroom where [the] case was announced by his name and the complaintant, while never having viewed [the defendant] in a non-suggestive setting, had been given [the defendant’s] name by the police.” Id., 485 Pa. at 22 n. 4, 400 A.2d at 1292 n. 4. | 3 | 1980–1984 |
In Re GAULT
green
2 sentences2020From this authority, Taylor deduces that “it is clear that the Fifth Amendment ‘applies’ to a certification hearing.” Id. at 24 (citing Commonwealth v. Batty, 393 A.2d 435 , 439 n.3 (Pa. 1978)). 1972We conclude that these events constituted more than sufficient notice to appellant’s parents under any test and therefore need not decide whether such notice is constitutionally mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 18 L. | 2 | 1972–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Dugger
green
2 sentences1988Id. 1988Id. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
Tumey v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2024The Commonwealth distinguishes this matter from the types of errors the high Court deemed structural in prior cases, such as the use of a coerced confession at trial, Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (1958), the denial of the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and a judge presiding over a trial who was not impartial, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), as well as the errors which our Court deemed structural or per se in Lewis, Kelly, and the Interest of J.M.B., supra, on the basis that in those cases the defendant’s liberty was directly at stake in the proceedings. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Payne v. Arkansas
green
1 sentence2024The Commonwealth distinguishes this matter from the types of errors the high Court deemed structural in prior cases, such as the use of a coerced confession at trial, Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (1958), the denial of the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and a judge presiding over a trial who was not impartial, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), as well as the errors which our Court deemed structural or per se in Lewis, Kelly, and the Interest of J.M.B., supra, on the basis that in those cases the defendant’s liberty was directly at stake in the proceedings. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
1 sentence2024The Commonwealth distinguishes this matter from the types of errors the high Court deemed structural in prior cases, such as the use of a coerced confession at trial, Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U.S. 560 (1958), the denial of the right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), and a judge presiding over a trial who was not impartial, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927), as well as the errors which our Court deemed structural or per se in Lewis, Kelly, and the Interest of J.M.B., supra, on the basis that in those cases the defendant’s liberty was directly at stake in the proceedings. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Janicik v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
1 sentence2023Id. at 457 . 6 “At the certification hearing, the court will have before it the class action allegations in the complaint, the defendant’s answer to these allegations, any depositions or admissions relating to these allegations and any testimony relating to those allegations that may be offered at the hearing.” Pa.R.Civ.P. 1707, 1977 Explanatory Comment. 8 A. Commonality and Predominance We begin our analysis by considering Staniec’s position that the trial court committed legal errors in analyzing the commonality and predominance requirements for class certification. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rawson v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2021Our recent case law construing the certification requirement in Section 1532 of the Vehicle Code reasoned that “[PennDOT’s] action must be predicated upon a proper record of conviction.” Rawson, 99 A.3d at 147 ; see also Thorpe v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 214 A.3d 335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Batty
green
1 sentence2020From this authority, Taylor deduces that “it is clear that the Fifth Amendment ‘applies’ to a certification hearing.” Id. at 24 (citing Commonwealth v. Batty, 393 A.2d 435 , 439 n.3 (Pa. 1978)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Redmond
neutral
1 sentence2020Commonwealth v. Taylor, 204 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2019) (per curiam). [J-97-2019] - 8 that Taylor had never admitted to committing the crimes he pled not guilty to, and also that Taylor’s attorney had not admitted in open court that Taylor committed the alleged crimes”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
green
1 sentence2018Once an applicant files a Water Quality Certification application, the Clean Water Act gives the relevant state agency (here, the DEP) one year from the filing date of the application to return a decision; a failure to do so results in waiver of the certification requirement. 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (a)(1); Leidy Line, 3 833 F.3d at 369 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Weinberg v. Sun Co., Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Com., Dept. of Transp. v. McCafferty green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Commonwealth v. Sanders green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Commonwealth v. Frankenfield green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Commonwealth v. Proctor neutral | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Commonwealth v. Potts green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Aronson v. City of Pittsburgh green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Commonwealth v. Stocker green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Cavanaugh v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp. green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Commonwealth v. Goodman green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Commonwealth v. Hoffman green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Parker v. Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Commonwealth v. Riggins green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Dinkins green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Commonwealth v. Richman green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Freeman Appeal green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Larry O. Black v. United States green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.