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 1 courts 1987–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Pennsylvania Board of Probationgreen2 sentences2016“Where ... the Board fail[s] to meet its burden of establishing the timeliness of the revocation hearing, the appropriate remedy is dismissal of the parole violation charges with prejudice.” McDonald v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 673 A.2d 27, 30 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996). 2007McDonald v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 673 A.2d 27, 29 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (holding that the Board’s failure to explain its delay in holding a parole revocation hearing requires that the charge of a parole violation be dismissed). | 2 | 2 |
Wiley v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parolegreen2 sentences2018Id. 2017Notably, we previously held that the same form used in this case, Form 275C, constituted substantial evidence of the timeliness of a revocation hearing in Wiley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 967 A.2d 1060, 1063 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 2009).2 Likewise, we conclude, as we did in Wiley, that the Board met its burden proving the timeliness of the revocation hearing. | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2009Johnson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 890 A.2d 45, 49 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (emphasis deleted and footnote omitted). 2009Johnson v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. and Parole, 890 A.2d 45, 49 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (emphasis deleted and footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2008We have declined to require that the 120-day period commence with the date of a parolee’s actual conviction because such a requirement would impose on the Board a “Herculean task of searching the dockets of every court of record in the United States on a daily basis.” Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 79 , 596 A.2d 264, 265 (1991). 2008We have declined to require that the 120-day period commence with the date of a parolee’s actual conviction because such a requirement would impose on the Board a “Herculean task of searching the dockets of every court of record in the United States on a daily basis.” Lee v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 79 , 596 A.2d 264, 265 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2017The Board acknowledged it had received official verification of Brown's conviction on November 26, 2013, but, because Brown was in federal custody, it based the timeliness of the revocation hearing on the date Brown was returned to a SCI. ( Id. ) Brown now petitions this Court for review. 5 Relying on several recent cases from this Court, including Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 147 A.3d 610 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), and Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 90 A.3d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), 6 Brown argues that, pursuant to Section 6138(a)(5.1), he was to serve t | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2017The Board acknowledged it had received official verification of Brown's conviction on November 26, 2013, but, because Brown was in federal custody, it based the timeliness of the revocation hearing on the date Brown was returned to a SCI. ( Id. ) Brown now petitions this Court for review. 5 Relying on several recent cases from this Court, including Fumea v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 147 A.3d 610 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), and Baasit v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole , 90 A.3d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014), 6 Brown argues that, pursuant to Section 6138(a)(5.1), he was to serve t | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wiley v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole
neutral
1 sentence2017Notably, we previously held that the same form used in this case, Form 275C, constituted substantial evidence of the timeliness of a revocation hearing in Wiley v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole, 967 A.2d 1060, 1063 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 982 A.2d 1229 (Pa. 2009).2 Likewise, we conclude, as we did in Wiley, that the Board met its burden proving the timeliness of the revocation hearing. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Saunders v. BD. OF PROBATION & PAROLE
green
1 sentence1992Saunders v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 612, 568 A.2d 1370 , petition for allowance of appeal denied, 527 Pa. 620 , 590 A.2d 760 (1990). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Falasco v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
green
2 sentences1987In Falasco v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 321 , 521 A.2d 991 (1987), this Court held that the Board could take official notice of information contained in its own files or if the fact noticed was obvious and notorious to either the ordinary person or expert in the Boards field. 1987In Falasco v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 321 , 521 A.2d 991 (1987), this Court held that the Board could take official notice of information contained in its own files or if the fact noticed was obvious and notorious to either the ordinary person or expert in the Boards field. | 1 | 1987–1987 |