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 1989–2026 3 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. Greengreen2 sentences2023Before reviewing the merits of Snyder’s claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the appeal was timely; (2) the appellant has preserved [her] issue; (3) [her] brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of [her] sentence; and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question whether the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469 , 488 (Pa.Super. 2019). 2023Before reviewing the merits of Snyder’s claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the appeal was timely; (2) the appellant has preserved [her] issue; (3) [her] brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of [her] sentence; and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question whether the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 488 (Pa.Super. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bundygreen1 sentence2015See Trial Court Opinion, 10/29/14, at 7; see also Commonwealth v. Bundy, 96 A.3d 390, 394 (Pa. Super. 2014) (collecting cases and holding that “the statutory and rule-based requirements governing a PCRA petition do not apply to a challenge to the retroactive application of [SORNA], but [] this Court has jurisdiction to review orders confirming or rejecting a retroactive registration requirement.”). -4- J-S24041-15 did not order Snyder to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement of errors complained of on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Snydergreen2 sentences2002Of particular importance to Scher's case, we then went on to say, "looking to the second prong of the Marion/Lovasco test, we must next decide whether the Commonwealth's reasons for postponing the Appellant's arrest were proper." Id. at 603. 2002Of particular importance to Scher’s case, we then went on to say, “looking to the second prong of the Marion/Lovasco test, we must next decide whether the Commonwealth’s reasons for postponing the Appellant’s arrest were proper.” Id. at 603. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Patane
green
1 sentence2026It first reasoned that “Miranda and the Self-Incrimination clause do not pertain to ‘nontestimonial evidence [that was] obtained as a result of voluntary statements.’” Trial Court Opinion, 3/21/25, at 8 (emphasis added) (quoting U.S. v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Com. v. Snyder, C.
green
1 sentence2022Snyder, supra at 795 n. 11.5 Accordingly, ____________________________________________ 5 That is, Subchapter H’s presumption of recidivism is the fact not submitted to a jury under the Apprendi/Alleyne construct. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commonwealth v. Shabazz
green
1 sentence2018Turning to the present matter, the trial court distinguished the facts presented in Shabazz, supra, and determined Trooper Snyder’s stop of Marino’s vehicle was unlawful: [Trooper] Snyder initiated the traffic stop in broad daylight and was able to clearly see the object hanging from [Marino’s] rearview mirror. … [Trooper] Snyder was able to accurately describe the object and state that he believed the object created an obstruction to [Marino’s] view. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Scher
green
2 sentences2001Scher, 732 A.2d at 1283 . ¶ 5 Under the first prong of the Scher/Snyder test, the majority expressly concedes that McCormick would be prejudiced in his right to a fair trial, due to the numerous witnesses who have died, or who have no recollection of the events of Alan Bennett Cosey's ("Cosey") death, and the evidence that has been destroyed due to the passage of time. 2001Scher, 732 A.2d at 1283 . ¶ 5 Under the first prong of the Scher/Snyder test, the majority expressly concedes that McCormick would be prejudiced in his right to a fair trial, due to the numerous witnesses who have died, or who have no recollection of the events of Alan Bennett Cosey’s (“Cosey”) death, and the evidence that has been destroyed due to the passage of time. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Dodaro v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1996Snyder argues that the SEC erred in its 2/16/96 Order because it ignored Dodaro v. Com., State Ethics Commission, 527 Pa. 539 , 594 A.2d 652 (1991), a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ease upon which the SEC relied when it issued its 8/3/95 Order. 1996Snyder argues that the SEC erred in its 2/16/96 Order because it ignored Dodaro v. Com., State Ethics Commission, 527 Pa. 539 , 594 A.2d 652 (1991), a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ease upon which the SEC relied when it issued its 8/3/95 Order. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Commonwealth v. Hailey
green
2 sentences1989Cf. Commonwealth v. Hailey, 470 Pa. 488 , 368 A.2d 1261 (1977) (plurality). 1989Cf. Commonwealth v. Hailey, 470 Pa. 488 , 368 A.2d 1261 (1977) (plurality). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.