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 3 courts 1978–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lewis v. Caseygreen2 sentences2023To establish a Bounds violation, an inmate must show an “actual injury” by showing that the denial or “alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 2023To establish a Bounds violation, an inmate must show an “actual injury” by showing that the denial or “alleged shortcomings in the library or legal assistance program hindered his efforts to pursue a legal claim.” Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Matronigreen1 sentence2015Indeed, “[t]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007). -4- J-S44032-15 sentence motion.” (emphasis added)); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 563 A.2d 905, 906 (Pa. Super. 1989) (“When [a post-sentence] motion is not timely filed, the issues presented in the untimely motion are deemed waived.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2015Indeed, “[t]his Court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” Commonwealth v. Matroni, 923 A.2d 444, 455 (Pa. Super. 2007). -4- J-S44032-15 sentence motion.” (emphasis added)); see also Commonwealth v. Smith, 563 A.2d 905, 906 (Pa. Super. 1989) (“When [a post-sentence] motion is not timely filed, the issues presented in the untimely motion are deemed waived.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Shellergreen1 sentence2015Thus, Bounds’ post-sentence motion was untimely and he has failed to preserve his discretionary aspects challenge for our review.4 See Commonwealth v. Sheller, 961 A.2d 187, 189 (Pa. Super. 2008) (“To properly preserve the discretionary aspects of sentencing for appellate review, the issue must be raised during sentencing or in a timely post- ____________________________________________ 4 Moreover, we observe that had Bounds’ claim been properly preserved, it is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
Spragg v. Shore Caregreen1 sentence2000See id. at 81 , 637 A.2d at 993 . | 1 | 1 |
Nigro v. Remington Arms Co., Inc.green1 sentence2000See id. at 81 , 637 A.2d at 993 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peterkin v. Jeffes
green
2 sentences1992While we agree that Johnston’s claims may be actionable, we have previously held that where a claim implicates the “core” Bounds issue of denial of access to the courts, “ ‘an actual injury necessarily occurs by virtue of a prison’s failure to provide the level of assistance required under Bounds’ ” Shoats v. Department of Corrections, 139 Pa.Commonwealth *104 Ct. 607, 591 A.2d 326 (1991) (citing Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021 (3rd Cir.1988)). 1991Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021 (3rd Cir.1988). | 3 | 1991–1992 |
Shoats v. COM'R, PA. DEPT. OF CORR.
green
1 sentence1992While we agree that Johnston’s claims may be actionable, we have previously held that where a claim implicates the “core” Bounds issue of denial of access to the courts, “ ‘an actual injury necessarily occurs by virtue of a prison’s failure to provide the level of assistance required under Bounds’ ” Shoats v. Department of Corrections, 139 Pa.Commonwealth *104 Ct. 607, 591 A.2d 326 (1991) (citing Peterkin v. Jeffes, 855 F.2d 1021 (3rd Cir.1988)). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Grutski v. Kline
green
2 sentences1989In Grutski v. Kline, 352 Pa. 401 , 43 A.2d 142 (1945), the Supreme Court established that impeachment of an expert witness by demonstrating *350 partiality to the party for whom the expert is testifying is permissible. 1989In Grutski v. Kline, 352 Pa. 401 , 43 A.2d 142 (1945), the Supreme Court established that impeachment of an expert witness by demonstrating *350 partiality to the party for whom the expert is testifying is permissible. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences1978For a general treatment of the proper scope of a prosecutor's closing argument, see the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 5.8 (Approved Draft, 1971). [2] The pertinent portion of the opinion of Judge Lagakos for the court en banc reads as follows: "[D]efense counsel has been unable to point to a single improper remark allegedly attributable to the District Attorney, nor do our own notes reveal any such improper comments having been made. * * * * * * "We are compelled to conclude that were the remarks of the pro 1978For a general treatment of the proper scope of a prosecutor's closing argument, see the American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to the Prosecution Function, § 5.8 (Approved Draft, 1971). [2] The pertinent portion of the opinion of Judge Lagakos for the court en banc reads as follows: "[D]efense counsel has been unable to point to a single improper remark allegedly attributable to the District Attorney, nor do our own notes reveal any such improper comments having been made. * * * * * * "We are compelled to conclude that were the remarks of the pro | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.