9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2004–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Gillins, R.green2 sentences2026See Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. 2023) (explaining that in general, case challenging sentence and ____________________________________________ 9 Subsection (b.1), regarding failure to pay fines, also limits the trial court’s typical discretion in resentencing but is not applicable to this case. - 16 - J-A18018-25 not underlying conviction is moot upon expiration of sentence without demonstration of collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or- controversy requirement) (citation omitted). 2024Where an appellant “chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of the sentence renders the case moot unless the [appellant] can demonstrate collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement.” Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Mistich v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)). | 3 | 3 |
Mistich v. COM., BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLEgreen2 sentences2025Therefore, “where a petitioner chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of that sentence renders the case moot unless the petitioner can demonstrate collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement.” Id. 2024Where an appellant “chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of the sentence renders the case moot unless the [appellant] can demonstrate collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement.” Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. 2023) (citing Mistich v. Pa. Bd. of Probation and Parole, 863 A.2d 116, 120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)). | 2 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Kinggreen2 sentences2024See Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993, 996-97 (Pa. Super. 2001) (holding that a defendant’s challenge to the legality of his probationary sentence was moot where the sentence imposed had already been served and there were no criminal or civil consequences); see also Commonwealth v. Gillins, 302 A.3d 154, 162 (Pa. Super. 2023) (noting that if a defendant “chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of the sentence renders the case moot unless the petitioner can -5- J-S13023-24 demonstrate collateral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or- contro 2023Accord Commonwealth v. King, 786 A.2d 993 , 996 (Pa. Super. 2001). | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. Carrgreen1 sentence2022See Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2493-94 (2019) (“In such a case the claim is said to present a ‘political question’ and to be nonjusticiable— outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction.”) (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 217 ). | 1 | 1 |
Rucho v. Common Causegreen1 sentence2022See Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S.Ct. 2484, 2493-94 (2019) (“In such a case the claim is said to present a ‘political question’ and to be nonjusticiable— outside the courts’ competence and therefore beyond the courts’ jurisdiction.”) (citing Baker, 369 U.S. at 217 ). | 1 | 1 |
Association of City Management & Professional Employees v. Civil Service Commission of Philadelphiagreen2 sentences2009Comm'n of City, 721 A.2d 815, 818 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998), appeal denied, 559 Pa. 722 , 740 A.2d 1149 (1999) (holding that a case or controversy inquiry is jurisdictional so court could raise it sua sponte ). [3] Indeed, the hypothetical events did not happen nor are they likely to happen because Mr. DiBerardinis and Ms. McGinty are no longer secretaries of the DCNR and DEP. 2009Comm’n of City, 721 A.2d 815, 818 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998), appeal denied, 559 Pa. 722 , 740 A.2d 1149 (1999) (holding that a case or controversy inquiry is jurisdictional so court could raise it sua sponte). . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Hickson
green
2 sentences2009In re Hickson, 573 Pa. 127 , 821 A.2d 1238 , 1243 n. 5 (2003). 2009In re Hickson, 573 Pa. 127 , 821 A.2d 1238 , 1243 n. 5 (2003). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Sibron v. New York
green
2 sentences2004In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) the Supreme Court established a presumption of collateral consequences where a litigant challenges a criminal conviction. 3 However, this presumption has not been extended to circumstances where the underlying conviction is not at issue. 4 Where a petitioner chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of that sentence renders the case moot unless the petitioner can demonstrate that eollat-eral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement. 2004In Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 , 88 S.Ct. 1889 , 20 L.Ed.2d 917 (1968) the Supreme Court established a presumption of collateral consequences where a litigant challenges a criminal conviction. 3 However, this presumption has not been extended to circumstances where the underlying conviction is not at issue. 4 Where a petitioner chooses to attack only his sentence, and not the underlying conviction, the expiration of that sentence renders the case moot unless the petitioner can demonstrate that eollat-eral consequences adequate to satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.