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 1923–2025 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. Wilsongreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of 11½ to 23 - 10 - J-A19036-17 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, and 5 years of probation—which was only 25% of the lowest standard rang 2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of llMs to 23 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, a,nd 5 years, of probation— which was only 25% of the lowest standard range—imposed follo | 2 | 3 |
State v. Priorgreen2 sentences2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ 2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ | 2 | 2 |
cluster 731282green2 sentences2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ 2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ | 2 | 2 |
State v. De Simonegreen2 sentences2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ 2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ | 2 | 2 |
State v. Vandivergreen2 sentences2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ 2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nievesgreen2 sentences2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ 2025In order for an [APP warrant] to be valid under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, it must be shown that all persons present were probably involved in the illegal activity.”). 34 This “den of thieves” theory appears to be the lowest bar set by courts that have approved APP warrants. [J-36A-2024, J-36B-2024 and J-36C-2024] [OAJC: Wecht, J.] - 45 all persons on the premises at the time of the search are involved in the criminal activity”); Marks v. Clarke, 102 F.3d 1012, 1029 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing that an APP warrant “may only be obtained when there is reason to believ | 2 | 2 |
Beeler v. Stategreen2 sentences2025See, e.g., Beeler v. State, 677 P.2d 653, 656 (Okla. 2025See, e.g., Beeler v. State, 677 P.2d 653, 656 (Okla. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Kennergreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of 11½ to 23 - 10 - J-A19036-17 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, and 5 years of probation—which was only 25% of the lowest standard rang 2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of llMs to 23 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, a,nd 5 years, of probation— which was only 25% of the lowest standard range—imposed follo | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Danielgreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of 11½ to 23 - 10 - J-A19036-17 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, and 5 years of probation—which was only 25% of the lowest standard rang 2017See Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767, 770 (Pa. Super. 2008) (concluding that sentence of 11½ to 23 months in prison, followed by 7 years of probation for robbery was unreasonably low, based on the nature of the crimes, the defendant’s past aggressive conduct and continuing threat to the public, and the injuries suffered by the victims); see also Commonwealth v. Daniel, 30 A.3d 494, 497, 499 (Pa. Super. 2011) (concluding that a sentence of llMs to 23 months in prison, with immediate parole eligibility, a,nd 5 years, of probation— which was only 25% of the lowest standard range—imposed follo | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
G.H. v. Department of Public Welfare
green
2 sentences2016In re S.H., 96 A.3d 448 , 455 n. 7 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014). 2016In re S.H., 96 A.3d 448 , 455 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Wilson
neutral
1 sentence2011Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767 (Pa.Super.2008), aff'd per curiam, 601 Pa. 96 , 971 A.2d 1121 (2009), is instructive herein. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Com. v. Wilson
green
1 sentence2011Commonwealth v. Wilson, 946 A.2d 767 (Pa.Super.2008), aff'd per curiam, 601 Pa. 96 , 971 A.2d 1121 (2009), is instructive herein. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Arnold v. Blabon
neutral
1 sentence1923We see no error in this; parties are assumed to deal according to the customs of the business respecting which they are contracting (Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell, 274 Pa. 190 ), and where it can be done, as here it could if defendant’s evidence is believed, it is “entitled to have damages assessed as at the date when a fresh contract might and ought to have been made” (Benjamin on Sales, 6th edition, 1106), for only in this manner can the damages be measured, as they must be, according to the lowest standard reasonably applicable: Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Pa. 372 ; Franklin Sugar Refinin | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell
green
2 sentences1923We see no error in this; parties are assumed to deal according to the customs of the business respecting which they are contracting (Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell, 274 Pa. 190 ), and where it can be done, as here it could if defendant’s evidence is believed, it is “entitled to have damages assessed as at the date when a fresh contract might and ought to have been made” (Benjamin on Sales, 6th edition, 1106), for only in this manner can the damages be measured, as they must be, according to the lowest standard reasonably applicable: Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Pa. 372 ; Franklin Sugar Refinin 1923We see no error in this; parties are assumed to deal according to the customs of the business respecting which they are contracting (Franklin Sugar Refining Co. v. Howell, 274 Pa. 190 ), and where it can be done, as here it could if defendant’s evidence is believed, it is “entitled to have damages assessed as at the date when a fresh contract might and ought to have been made” (Benjamin on Sales, 6th edition, 1106), for only in this manner can the damages be measured, as they must be, according to the lowest standard reasonably applicable: Arnold v. Blabon, 147 Pa. 372 ; Franklin Sugar Refinin | 1 | 1923–1923 |
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.