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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 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. Robinsongreen2 sentences1990See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379 , 446 A.2d 895 (1982). 1990See Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379 , 446 A.2d 895 (1982). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Clyburngreen1 sentence2025See Clyburn, 42 A.3d at 301 ; Bieber, 2020 WL 4218816 , at *5. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2025See Phillips, 141 A.3d at 521 . | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Forrester-Westad, J.green1 sentence2025See Forester-Westad, 282 A.3d at 816. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Colongreen2 sentences1984At the very least, the five days intervening between appellant’s failure to appear and the bench warrant hearing following his arrest were excludable. 7 “[T]he period of excludable days is not necessarily measured by the length of time that a defendant was ‘unavailable.’ Instead, once it is determined that the defendant was unavailable, the critical inquiry is whether actual delay resulted from the defendant’s unavailability. ‘If the “unavailability” results in an actual delay in the proceedings, that delay is automatically excluded.’ ” Commonwealth v. Colon, 317 Pa.Super. 412, 425 , 464 A.2d 1984At the very least, the five days intervening between appellant’s failure to appear and the bench warrant hearing following his arrest were excludable. 7 “[T]he period of excludable days is not necessarily measured by the length of time that a defendant was ‘unavailable.’ Instead, once it is determined that the defendant was unavailable, the critical inquiry is whether actual delay resulted from the defendant’s unavailability. ‘If the “unavailability” results in an actual delay in the proceedings, that delay is automatically excluded.’ ” Commonwealth v. Colon, 317 Pa.Super. 412, 425 , 464 A.2d | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Perrygreen2 sentences1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). 1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millhousegreen2 sentences1984At the very least, the five days intervening between appellant’s failure to appear and the bench warrant hearing following his arrest were excludable. 7 “[T]he period of excludable days is not necessarily measured by the length of time that a defendant was ‘unavailable.’ Instead, once it is determined that the defendant was unavailable, the critical inquiry is whether actual delay resulted from the defendant’s unavailability. ‘If the “unavailability” results in an actual delay in the proceedings, that delay is automatically excluded.’ ” Commonwealth v. Colon, 317 Pa.Super. 412, 425 , 464 A.2d 1984At the very least, the five days intervening between appellant’s failure to appear and the bench warrant hearing following his arrest were excludable. 7 “[T]he period of excludable days is not necessarily measured by the length of time that a defendant was ‘unavailable.’ Instead, once it is determined that the defendant was unavailable, the critical inquiry is whether actual delay resulted from the defendant’s unavailability. ‘If the “unavailability” results in an actual delay in the proceedings, that delay is automatically excluded.’ ” Commonwealth v. Colon, 317 Pa.Super. 412, 425 , 464 A.2d | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Derrickgreen2 sentences1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). 1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Chapmangreen2 sentences1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). 1984See also: Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 898-899 (1982); Commonwealth v. Derrick, 322 Pa.Super. 517, 530 , 469 A.2d 1111, 1118 (1983); Commonwealth v. Perry, 296 Pa.Super. 359, 362 , 442 A.2d 808, 810 (1982); Commonwealth v. Chapman, 271 Pa.Super. 473, 476 , 414 A.2d 352, 353 (1979). | 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. Johnson
green
1 sentence2025Thus, the bench warrant associated with Case 4927 was active and valid on June 28, 2023[,] when Craig was arrested.”4 Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Kates
green
1 sentence2020On September 26, 2017, the Commonwealth filed a motion to proceed with the VOP hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (holding that it is constitutionally permissible to hold a probation revocation hearing after arrest, but prior to trial, on a charge that constitutes ____________________________________________ 1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c), respectively. 235 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104, and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), respectively. 3 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). -2- a probation violation) (Daisy Kates). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2020On September 26, 2017, the Commonwealth filed a motion to proceed with the VOP hearing pursuant to Commonwealth v. Kates, 305 A.2d 701 (Pa. 1973) (holding that it is constitutionally permissible to hold a probation revocation hearing after arrest, but prior to trial, on a charge that constitutes ____________________________________________ 1 35 P.S. §§ 780-113(a)(30), (16), and 18 Pa.C.S. § 903(c), respectively. 235 P.S. § 780-113(a)(30), 18 Pa.C.S. § 5104, and 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16), respectively. 3 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). -2- a probation violation) (Daisy Kates). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, M., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2018Pa.R.Crim.P. 431(C)(1), (3). -7- J-A17039-18 “When construing a Rule of Criminal Procedure, courts utilize the Statutory Construction Act when possible.” Commonwealth v. Sepulveda, 144 A.3d 1270 , 1270 n.18 (Pa. 2016) (citing Pa.R.Crim.P. 101(c)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Luketic
green
1 sentence2018"If there is any doubt, the issuing authority can seek the advice of the attorney for the Commonwealth, if one is prosecuting the case, as to whether the Commonwealth intends to recommend a jail sentence in case of conviction." Id. 15 The Commonwealth's brief does not acknowledge that Appellant was notified of his right to counsel at the April 6, 2017 bench warrant hearing and not at the April 24, 2017 contempt hearing, which resulted in his imprisonment. 16 As set forth above, Appellant did not state at the contempt hearing that he knew someone in Reading that could pay for bail-that testimon | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Shields
green
1 sentence2014(Appellant’s brief at 59.) Appellant directs our attention to Commonwealth v. Shields, 383 A.2d 844 (Pa. 1978), wherein portions of the trial transcript were lost that included potential prejudicial comments made by the prosecution during closing arguments. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.