8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wisconsin v. Yodergreen1 sentence2023See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 220 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hallgreen1 sentence2019Id. (holding recognized by Commonwealth v. Hall, 929 A.2d 1202, 1207 (Pa. Super. 2007)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stanleygreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 484 Pa. 2 , 398 A.2d 631, 633 (1979). 2017See Commonwealth v. Stanley, 398 A.2d 631, 633 (Pa. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hicksgreen2 sentences1984There Justice Nix found a fatal weakness in Hicks’ claim — the absence of any allegation of "a defect of reason resulting from a disease of the mind." 483 Pa. at 310 , 396 A.2d at 1185 (emphasis in the original). 1984There Justice Nix found a fatal weakness in Hicks’ claim — the absence of any allegation of "a defect of reason resulting from a disease of the mind." 483 Pa. at 310 , 396 A.2d at 1185 (emphasis in the original). | 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. Hicks, C., Aplt.
green
2 sentences2026Id. 2026To achieve this result, Chief Justice Saylor employed the “doctrine of chances.” Id. at 1132 . | 3 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2019However, the court denied Hicks’ motion to suppress, reasoning as follows: “In limited circumstances, an individual may be stopped, briefly detained, and frisked for investigatory purposes.” [Robinson, 600 A.2d at 959 ]. 3 See 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(b); 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(a)(1); 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(31); 18 Pa.C.S. § 5503(a)(4), respectively. [J-86-2018] - 4 Possession of a concealed weapon in public creates a reasonable suspicion justifying an investigatory stop in order to investigate whether the person is properly licensed. 2019However, the court denied Hicks' motion to suppress, reasoning as follows: "In limited circumstances, an individual may be stopped, briefly detained, and frisked for investigatory purposes." [ Robinson , 600 A.2d at 959 ]. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Arizona v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 323–24. - 14 - J-S76001-18 The trial court granted Hicks’s motion to suppress, reasoning that although the warrantless search of Hicks’s apartment was justified based on exigent circumstances related to the shooting, Officer Nelson’s action of moving the stereo components to view their serial numbers constituted a search unrelated to the exigency. 2019Id. at 324 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.