9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2025 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. Luketicgreen1 sentence2025Commonwealth v. Luketic, 162 A.3d 1149, 1160 (Pa.Super. 2017). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Battersongreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Batterson, 601 A.2d 335, 336-37 (Pa. Super. 1992) (challenge to weapon enhancement waived “because it has been raised for the first time on appeal and was not preserved in the lower court via a motion to modify sentence.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2001Williams, 782 A.2d at 525 & n. 5 (“[w]e make no suggestion here that there should be a relaxation of the substantive Sixth Amendment standard.”); see also id. at 527 (Zappala, J., concurring) (Marrero merely expressed view that boilerplate assertion of ineffectiveness is sufficient to overcome waiver, but did not set forth how such claims should be developed); id. at 534 (Castille, J., concurring) (noting distinction between waiver under PCRA and waiver as question of appellate jurisprudence, and noting separate question of substantive standards for analyzing claims of ineffective assistance). 2001Williams, 782 A.2d at 525 & n. 5 (“[w]e make no suggestion here that there should be a relaxation of the substantive Sixth Amendment standard.”); see also id. at 527 (Zappala, J., concurring) (Marrero merely expressed view that boilerplate assertion of ineffectiveness is sufficient to overcome waiver, but did not set forth how such claims should be developed); id. at 534 (Castille, J., concurring) (noting distinction between waiver under PCRA and waiver as question of appellate jurisprudence, and noting separate question of substantive standards for analyzing claims of ineffective assistance). | 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. Colon
green
2 sentences2019Colon, 102 A.3d at 1043 . 2019Colon , 102 A.3d at 1043 . | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Derrickson
green
1 sentence2024Because Benjamin’s second petition was untimely, however, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to consider its merits.4 Derrickson, supra. ____________________________________________ 3 Because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday, Benjamin had until the following Monday to file a timely PCRA petition. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Dennis
green
1 sentence2018Dennis, 859 A.2d at 1275 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
green
2 sentences2017As the U.S. Supreme Court explained- in Semtek-. “the traditional rule is that expiration of the applicable ■ statute of limitations merely bars the remedy and does not extinguish the substantive right, so that dismissal on that ground does not have claim-preclusive effect in other jurisdictions with longer, unexpired limitations periods.” 531 U.S. at 504 , 121 S.Ct. 1021 . 2017As the U.S. Supreme Court explained- in Semtek-. “the traditional rule is that expiration of the applicable ■ statute of limitations merely bars the remedy and does not extinguish the substantive right, so that dismissal on that ground does not have claim-preclusive effect in other jurisdictions with longer, unexpired limitations periods.” 531 U.S. at 504 , 121 S.Ct. 1021 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.