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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1955–2021 1 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. Busanetgreen1 sentence2021In reviewing the PCRA court’s dismissal of Appellant’s petition, we examine “whether the PCRA court’s findings of fact are supported by the record, and whether its conclusions of law are free from legal error.” Commonwealth v. Busanet, 54 A.3d 35, 45 (Pa. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hollomangreen2 sentences1997See Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Super. 73 , 621 A.2d 1046, 1053-54 (1993). 1997See Commonwealth v. Holloman, 424 Pa.Super. 73 , 621 A.2d 1046, 1053-54 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Township of Lower Merion v. Manninggreen1 sentence1955The claim was a lien upon the property before it was filed in the Common Pleas and it continued to be a lien after it was filed, the filing merely preserved the status quo.” That the filing of a municipal claim is not such an election of a remedy as to render resort to another improper was reiterated in Township of Lower Merion v. Manning, et al., 95 Pa. Superior Ct. 322, 325 (1928). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Rivera
green
2 sentences1984We adopt the language in People v. Rivera, supra, perhaps the leading case on this subject, when it states, 14 N.Y.2d 441 at 447 , 252 N.Y.S.2d 458 at 463 , 201 N.E.2d 32 at 35: “And as the right to stop and inquire is to be justified for a cause less conclusive than that which would sustain an arrest, so the right to frisk may be justified as an incident to inquiry upon grounds of elemental safety and precaution which might not initially sustain a search.” This is not to say that in every case the investigating policeman may automatically frisk a suspect for weapons. 1984We adopt the language in People v. Rivera, supra, perhaps the leading case on this subject, when it states, 14 N.Y.2d 441 at 447 , 252 N.Y.S.2d 458 at 463 , 201 N.E.2d 32 at 35: “And as the right to stop and inquire is to be justified for a cause less conclusive than that which would sustain an arrest, so the right to frisk may be justified as an incident to inquiry upon grounds of elemental safety and precaution which might not initially sustain a search.” This is not to say that in every case the investigating policeman may automatically frisk a suspect for weapons. | 2 | 1966–1984 |
Commonwealth v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Sullivan
green
1 sentence2015In Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 820 A.2d 795 (Pa.Super2003), the Superior Court found that the trial court did not err when it denied defendant's motion for mistrial when the Commonwealth offered testimony of a state trooper regarding his recollection of the defendant's statements to police after an incident that the defense claimed was an undisclosed inculpatory statement. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Wiggins v. Smith, Warden
green
1 sentence2009Similarly, in addressing an incident at a bar, Appellant indicates he told a man "if you yell anymore at the women I'm going to ram my pool stick down your throat." Id. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences1992In Bruce’s Juices, supra., the Supreme Court found that, “[t]he same general principle was also applied in Pratt v. Paris Gaslight and Coke Co., 168 U.S. 255 , 18 S.Ct. 62 , 42 L.Ed. 458 (1897), wherein it was held that jurisdiction of a state court was not affected by an issue of the invalidity of a patent as an incident to a defense, although that court could have exercised no jurisdiction had the matter been presented to support a recovery.” Id. 1992In Bruce’s Juices, supra., the Supreme Court found that, “[t]he same general principle was also applied in Pratt v. Paris Gaslight and Coke Co., 168 U.S. 255 , 18 S.Ct. 62 , 42 L.Ed. 458 (1897), wherein it was held that jurisdiction of a state court was not affected by an issue of the invalidity of a patent as an incident to a defense, although that court could have exercised no jurisdiction had the matter been presented to support a recovery.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Company
green
1 sentence1992In Bruce’s Juices, supra., the Supreme Court found that, “[t]he same general principle was also applied in Pratt v. Paris Gaslight and Coke Co., 168 U.S. 255 , 18 S.Ct. 62 , 42 L.Ed. 458 (1897), wherein it was held that jurisdiction of a state court was not affected by an issue of the invalidity of a patent as an incident to a defense, although that court could have exercised no jurisdiction had the matter been presented to support a recovery.” Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.