8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2004 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Heddings v. Steelegreen2 sentences1996This court has long recognized the oath requirement as a further assurance of reliability. [citations omitted]. *492 Heddings v. Steele, 514 Pa. 569, 573 , 526 A.2d 349, 351 (1987). 1996This court has long recognized the oath requirement as a further assurance of reliability. [citations omitted]. *492 Heddings v. Steele, 514 Pa. 569, 573 , 526 A.2d 349, 351 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Stewartgreen2 sentences1992Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). 1987Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). | 2 | 2 |
Longenecker v. Hydegreen2 sentences1992Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). 1987Commonwealth v. Stewart, 1 Serg. & Rawle 342, 344 (1815); Longenecker v. Hyde, 6 Binn. 1, 2 (1813). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Haber
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bond v. Floyd
green
2 sentences1977Bond’s contention is that this standard was utilized to infringe his First Amendment rights, and we cannot distinguish for purposes of jurisdiction, between a disqualification under an unconstitutional standard and a disqualification which, although under a proper standard, is alleged to violate the First Amendment.” 385 U.S. at 131 , 87 S.Ct. at 347 . 1977Bond’s contention is that this standard was utilized to infringe his First Amendment rights, and we cannot distinguish for purposes of jurisdiction, between a disqualification under an unconstitutional standard and a disqualification which, although under a proper standard, is alleged to violate the First Amendment.” 385 U.S. at 131 , 87 S.Ct. at 347 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Brown v. Blauvelt
green
1 sentence1974General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Capitol Garage, Inc., supra; Ianni v. Daily, 153 Conn. 445, 448 ; Brown v. Blauvelt, 152 Conn. 272, 275 ; Sheary v. Hallock’s of Middletown, Inc., 149 Conn. 188, 195 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Ianni v. Daily
neutral
1 sentence1974General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Capitol Garage, Inc., supra; Ianni v. Daily, 153 Conn. 445, 448 ; Brown v. Blauvelt, 152 Conn. 272, 275 ; Sheary v. Hallock’s of Middletown, Inc., 149 Conn. 188, 195 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Sheary v. Hallock's of Middletown, Inc.
green
1 sentence1974General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Capitol Garage, Inc., supra; Ianni v. Daily, 153 Conn. 445, 448 ; Brown v. Blauvelt, 152 Conn. 272, 275 ; Sheary v. Hallock’s of Middletown, Inc., 149 Conn. 188, 195 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Capitol Garage, Inc.
green
1 sentence1973General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Capitol Garage, Inc., 154 Conn. 593, 597 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.