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 1 courts 1979–2025 5 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. D'Amatogreen2 sentences2024See D’ Amato, supra. Thus, we vacate the order and remand for an evidentiary hearing to make an independent evaluation of Gateward’s recantation. 2024See D’ Amato, supra; Diggs, supra; DeFranco, supra; Parks, supra. We conclude that the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing Hudgins’ PCRA petition without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. SELENSKIgreen1 sentence2019Third, to the extent that the PCRA court’s conclusion rests on Appellant’s failure to act diligently in discovering the newly-discovered fact at issue, we note that: “Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the [party] has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth. v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010). | 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. Springer
green
1 sentence2025In considering the propriety of dismissal without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, we examine the issues raised in light of the record “to determine whether the PCRA court erred in concluding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and in denying relief without an evidentiary hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Rindock, K. v. Decker, R.
neutral
1 sentence2024See D’ Amato, supra; Diggs, supra; DeFranco, supra; Parks, supra. We conclude that the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing Hudgins’ PCRA petition without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In the Interest of: J.M., Appeal of: M.M.
neutral
1 sentence2024See D’ Amato, supra; Diggs, supra; DeFranco, supra; Parks, supra. We conclude that the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing Hudgins’ PCRA petition without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Com. v. Diggs, C.
green
1 sentence2024See D’ Amato, supra; Diggs, supra; DeFranco, supra; Parks, supra. We conclude that the PCRA court abused its discretion by dismissing Hudgins’ PCRA petition without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt.
green
1 sentence2023Therefore, we vacate its order and remand for an evidentiary hearing.10 ____________________________________________ 9 Commonwealth v. (Eric Eugene) Small, 189 A.3d 961 (Pa. 2018). 10 We further note that while the dissent concludes Appellant failed to prove an exception to the PCRA’s timeliness requirements, it nevertheless offers its conclusion that Appellant’s after-discovered evidence claim lacks merit. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Padilla v. Kentucky
green
2 sentences2022“Assuming the truth of his allegations,” the United States Supreme Court concluded the Supreme Court of Kentucky improperly denied Mr. Padilla “relief without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing.” Id. 2022“Assuming the truth of his allegations,” the United States Supreme Court concluded the Supreme Court of Kentucky improperly denied Mr. Padilla “relief without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Commonwealth v. Ford
green
1 sentence2021As discussed, supra, we are able to determine that these claims were meritless without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, and this “Court may affirm a PCRA court’s decision on any grounds if the record supports it.” Ford, 44 A.3d at 1194 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Wright
green
1 sentence2009The Commonwealth asserts that Appellant is not entitled to file post-sentence motions, citing this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Wright, 846 A.2d 730 (Pa.Super.2004). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Pubusky v. D.M.F., Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Inc., 428 Pa. 461 , 239 A.2d 335 (1968) (injunction vacated when granted pursuant to improper procedure). *600 Instantly, the trial court made a similar determination as to the availability of an adequate remedy at law, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, based solely upon the pendency of another action by appellants for conversion and tortious interference with appellants' business. 1979Inc., 428 Pa. 461 , 239 A.2d 335 (1968) (injunction vacated when granted pursuant to improper procedure). *600 Instantly, the trial court made a similar determination as to the availability of an adequate remedy at law, without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing, based solely upon the pendency of another action by appellants for conversion and tortious interference with appellants' business. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.