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 3 courts 1985–2022 2 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. Reedgreen2 sentences2021After this Court reversed the PCRA court’s denial of Reed’s petition, the Commonwealth appealed to our Supreme Court. - 14 - J-S14009-21 The High Court focused upon this Court’s finding that the prior bad acts evidence was admissible: “[T]he Superior Court’s holding . . . that Reed’s claim regarding the admission of prior bad acts testimony was meritless was a valid holding that constitutes the law of the case, constraining the Court in [Reed’s subsequent appeal.]” Id. at 1220 . 2016See Commonwealth v. Reed, 971 A.2d 1216, 1220 (Pa. 2009) (where the Superior Court determined that Reed’s claims were waived, and also determined that even if the claims had not been waived, they were without merit, and explained the basis for its conclusions, the alternative holding that Reed’s claim regarding the admission of prior bad acts testimony was meritless was a valid holding that constituted the law of the case). -9- J. | 4 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Starrgreen2 sentences2010Thus, the Superior Court’s holding in Reed I that Reed’s claim regarding the admission of prior bad acts testimony was meritless was a valid holding that constitutes the law of the case, see Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 578 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1333 (1995) (holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule and all its attendant meanings and limitations expressed in previous case law would be assumed into law of the case doctrine)[.] Commonwealth v. Reed, 601 Pa. 257 , 971 A.2d 1216, 1220 (2009) (footnote omitted). ¶ 8 Herein, while our analysis of the merits was rather brief, we concluded durin 2010Thus, the Superior Court’s holding in Reed I that Reed’s claim regarding the admission of prior bad acts testimony was meritless was a valid holding that constitutes the law of the case, see Commonwealth v. Starr, 541 Pa. 564, 578 , 664 A.2d 1326, 1333 (1995) (holding that the coordinate jurisdiction rule and all its attendant meanings and limitations expressed in previous case law would be assumed into law of the case doctrine)[.] Commonwealth v. Reed, 601 Pa. 257 , 971 A.2d 1216, 1220 (2009) (footnote omitted). ¶ 8 Herein, while our analysis of the merits was rather brief, we concluded durin | 2 | 2 |
Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Co.green2 sentences2017Here, Reed’s claim is based on the alleged defamatory conduct of Brown. 9 *575 “An essential element of a defamation action is publication.” Flaxman v. Burnett, 393 Pa.Super. 520 , 574 A.2d 1061, 1066 (1990); see 42 Pa. C.S. § 8343(a). “[Regardless of where the defamatory statement is written or printed, no cause of action for libel [defamation] arises until there is a publication of the defamatory matter, which is its communication intentionally or by negligent act to one other than the person defamed.” Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Company, 426 Pa. 179 , 231 A.2d 753, 755 (1967) (quotation marks 2017Here, Reed’s claim is based on the alleged defamatory conduct of Brown. 9 *575 “An essential element of a defamation action is publication.” Flaxman v. Burnett, 393 Pa.Super. 520 , 574 A.2d 1061, 1066 (1990); see 42 Pa. C.S. § 8343(a). “[Regardless of where the defamatory statement is written or printed, no cause of action for libel [defamation] arises until there is a publication of the defamatory matter, which is its communication intentionally or by negligent act to one other than the person defamed.” Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Company, 426 Pa. 179 , 231 A.2d 753, 755 (1967) (quotation marks | 1 | 1 |
Flaxman v. Burnettgreen2 sentences2017Here, Reed’s claim is based on the alleged defamatory conduct of Brown. 9 *575 “An essential element of a defamation action is publication.” Flaxman v. Burnett, 393 Pa.Super. 520 , 574 A.2d 1061, 1066 (1990); see 42 Pa. C.S. § 8343(a). “[Regardless of where the defamatory statement is written or printed, no cause of action for libel [defamation] arises until there is a publication of the defamatory matter, which is its communication intentionally or by negligent act to one other than the person defamed.” Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Company, 426 Pa. 179 , 231 A.2d 753, 755 (1967) (quotation marks 2017Here, Reed’s claim is based on the alleged defamatory conduct of Brown. 9 *575 “An essential element of a defamation action is publication.” Flaxman v. Burnett, 393 Pa.Super. 520 , 574 A.2d 1061, 1066 (1990); see 42 Pa. C.S. § 8343(a). “[Regardless of where the defamatory statement is written or printed, no cause of action for libel [defamation] arises until there is a publication of the defamatory matter, which is its communication intentionally or by negligent act to one other than the person defamed.” Gaetano v. Sharon Herald Company, 426 Pa. 179 , 231 A.2d 753, 755 (1967) (quotation marks | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). 4 The Superior Court determined that Reed’s claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held “appellate counsel’s failure to file an adequate brief on dire'ct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal.” 5 Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwealth v. J 2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). [4] *1222 The Superior Court determined that Reed's claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held "appellate counsel's failure to file an adequate brief on direct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal." [5] Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwe | 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. Simmons
green
1 sentence2022One month later, on December 22, 2020, our Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. 4 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). 5 Id. § 6106(a)(1). 6 Id. § 3925(a). 7 Id. § 908(a). 8 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(32). 9 Id. § 780-113(a)(31). 10 18 Pa.C.S. § 5505. -3- J-S17019-22 Alexander, 243 A.3d 177 (Pa. 2020) (overruling Commonwealth v. Gary, 91 A.3d 102 (Pa. 2014)).11 Subsequently, on December 28, 2020, Reed filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his suppression motion based upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Alexander. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). [4] *1222 The Superior Court determined that Reed's claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held "appellate counsel's failure to file an adequate brief on direct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal." [5] Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwe 2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). [4] *1222 The Superior Court determined that Reed's claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held "appellate counsel's failure to file an adequate brief on direct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal." [5] Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwe | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). [4] *1222 The Superior Court determined that Reed's claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held "appellate counsel's failure to file an adequate brief on direct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal." [5] Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwe 2009Pierce, 515 Pa. at 158-59 , 527 A.2d at 975 ; Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (to obtain relief on an ineffectiveness claim, a defendant must prove that his counsel's performance was deficient, and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense). [4] *1222 The Superior Court determined that Reed's claim was of arguable merit, noting that it previously held "appellate counsel's failure to file an adequate brief on direct appeal constitutes a complete deprivation of the constitutional right to appeal." [5] Reed II, at 6 (citing Commonwe | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Reed Estate
green
2 sentences1985The trial court, however, relying on In Re Reed Estate, 462 Pa. 336 , 341 A.2d 108 (1975), for the proposition that as a rule of thumb executor’s commissions of 3% of the estate are reasonable, held that the fees requested by appellants exceeded both the Reed rule of thumb and the reasonable value of the services actually performed. 1985The trial court, however, relying on In Re Reed Estate, 462 Pa. 336 , 341 A.2d 108 (1975), for the proposition that as a rule of thumb executor’s commissions of 3% of the estate are reasonable, held that the fees requested by appellants exceeded both the Reed rule of thumb and the reasonable value of the services actually performed. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.