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 2019–2025 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. Downinggreen1 sentence2024See Commonwealth v. Prinkey, 277 A.3d 554 , 562-64 (Pa. 2022) (stating, “if the challenge is not to the existence of certain [trial court] authority but to the exercise of that authority, then the challenge goes to the discretionary - 12 - J-S03037-24 aspects of a sentence, not to its legality”) (footnote omitted); Commonwealth v. Downing, 990 A.2d 788, 792 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that a claim that the trial court considered improper factors at sentencing implicates the discretionary aspects of sentencing). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Spotzgreen2 sentences2024See Commonwealth v. Spotz, 18 A.3d 244, 281 (Pa. 2011). 2024See Spotz, 18 A.3d at 281 ; see also Kerns, 220 A.3d at 612 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mourygreen1 sentence2024Commonwealth v. Moury, 992 A.2d 162, 170 (Pa. Super. 2010) (“Objections to the discretionary aspects of a sentence are generally waived if they are not raised at the sentencing hearing or in a motion to modify the sentence imposed.”).10 ____________________________________________ 9 At the reconsideration hearing held on March 3, 2023, Cook objected to the revocation court’s reference to his prior firearm charges, saying he was not convicted of those charges. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Kerns, S.green1 sentence2024See Spotz, 18 A.3d at 281 ; see also Kerns, 220 A.3d at 612 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Mastromarinogreen1 sentence2022See Mastromarino, 2 A.3d at 586-87 .3 Finally, Cook’s claim that the sentencing court imposed a sentence without consideration of his poor health and rehabilitative needs similarly fails to raise a substantial question. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Caldwellgreen1 sentence2022See Caldwell, 117 A.3d at 770 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Greengreen1 sentence2019Before reviewing the merits of Cook’s claim, we must determine whether: “(1) the appeal is timely; (2) the appellant has preserved his issue; (3) his brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his sentence; and (4) the concise statement raises a substantial question whether the sentence is inappropriate under the Sentencing Code.” Commonwealth v. Green, 204 A.3d 469, 488 (Pa.Super. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2025Cook, 671 A.2d. at 1132 . 6 Discussion4 The Board contends the trial court erred in finding that Licensee is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief under the Cook standard and that the trial court failed to properly consider Licensee’s inaction leading to expiration of the safekeeping period and revocation of the License by operation of law. 2025Cook, 671 A.2d. at 1132 . 6 Discussion4 The Board contends the trial court erred in finding that Licensee is entitled to nunc pro tunc relief under the Cook standard and that the trial court failed to properly consider Licensee’s inaction leading to expiration of the safekeeping period and revocation of the License by operation of law. | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Smith, D. v. PA Board of Probation & Parole, Aplt.
green
1 sentence2025COVEY, Judge Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 133 A.3d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), rev’d on other grounds, 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017); see also Gaito. 11 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Bobby Leon Cook, : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 403 C.D. 2024 Respondent : ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2025, Nicholas E. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2025COVEY, Judge Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 133 A.3d 820 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016), rev’d on other grounds, 171 A.3d 759 (Pa. 2017); see also Gaito. 11 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Bobby Leon Cook, : Petitioner : : v. : : Pennsylvania Parole Board, : No. 403 C.D. 2024 Respondent : ORDER AND NOW, this 10th day of November, 2025, Nicholas E. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Hill v. Kilgallen
green
1 sentence2020We observe that in its September 17, 2018 order granting in part Cook’s motion to compel, the trial court, in relevant part, ordered Superintendent to provide Cook “with the grievances filed by Miss Landers, and the results thereof.” (O.R. at Item No 25.) The trial court also directed Superintendent’s attorney to answer Cook’s “question as to whether [Cook] complied with prison policy in his request” and, if not, ordered Superintendent to “provide information as to the section of prison policy which was violated in not allowing the transfer of money to take place.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.