8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Murphygreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 997 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting that while defendant did not handle the drugs, he took an active role in the conspiracy); see also Murphy, 844 A.2d at 1239 (stating that where the overt act requirement was satisfied when the co-conspirator delivered drugs to the buyer). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McCallgreen1 sentence2018See Commonwealth v. McCall, 911 A.2d 992, 997 (Pa. Super. 2006) (noting that while defendant did not handle the drugs, he took an active role in the conspiracy); see also Murphy, 844 A.2d at 1239 (stating that where the overt act requirement was satisfied when the co-conspirator delivered drugs to the buyer). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hannibalgreen1 sentence2016With respect to the overt act requirement, "[a]l co-conspirators are re~pons~ble for actions undertaken in furtherance of the conspiracy regardless of their individu~l kno~ledge of such actions and regardless of which member of the :I I ! conspiracy undertook the a~tion.'1 Com. v. Hannibal, 753 A.2d 1265, 1274 (Pa. 2000). : ! | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Craftgreen2 sentences1985See Commonwealth v. Craft, 304 Pa.Super. 494, 498 , 450 A.2d 1021, 1023 (1983). 1985See Commonwealth v. Craft, 304 Pa.Super. 494, 498 , 450 A.2d 1021, 1023 (1983). | 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. Rios
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Clay
green
2 sentences2017“Because the trial judge has had the opportunity to hear and see the evidence presented, an appellate court will give the gravest consideration to the findings and reasons advanced by the trial judge when reviewing a trial ____________________________________________ 6 Howard does not make a separate argument concerning the overt- act requirement. -9- J-S02035-17 court’s determination that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence.” Id. at 1055 . 2017A trial court should not grant a motion for a new trial “because of a mere conflict in the testimony or because the judge on the same facts would have arrived at a different conclusion.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Finn
green
1 sentence2006Id. ¶ 34 Additionally, the Crimes Code sets forth accomplice liability as follows: § 306. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Commonwealth v. La
green
2 sentences1998We find support for this position in Commonwealth v. La, 433 Pa.Super. 432 , 640 A.2d 1336 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 597 , 655 A.2d 986 (1994). 1998We find support for this position in Commonwealth v. La, 433 Pa.Super. 432 , 640 A.2d 1336 (1994), appeal denied, 540 Pa. 597 , 655 A.2d 986 (1994). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Derrera
green
1 sentence1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Johnson v. People
green
2 sentences1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . 1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Ledman
green
1 sentence1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Allen v. People
green
2 sentences1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . 1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Derrera, 667 P.2d 1363 (Colo.1983) (defining criminal attempt); People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo.1981) (analyzing the “substantial step” requirement); Allen v. People, 175 Colo. 113 , 485 P.2d 886 (1971) (discussing intent to commit a specific crime); Johnson v. People, 174 Colo. 413 , 484 P.2d 110 (1971) (defining the overt act requirement). 13 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Archuleta
green
2 sentences1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Diaz, 182 Colo. 369 , 513 P.2d 444 (1973) (observing that the actor must have no lawful right to be in the building); People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156 , 503 P.2d 346 (1972) (noting the requirement of specific intent). 14 . 1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Diaz, 182 Colo. 369 , 513 P.2d 444 (1973) (observing that the actor must have no lawful right to be in the building); People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156 , 503 P.2d 346 (1972) (noting the requirement of specific intent). 14 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
People v. Diaz
green
2 sentences1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Diaz, 182 Colo. 369 , 513 P.2d 444 (1973) (observing that the actor must have no lawful right to be in the building); People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156 , 503 P.2d 346 (1972) (noting the requirement of specific intent). 14 . 1987For cases applying this section, see People v. Diaz, 182 Colo. 369 , 513 P.2d 444 (1973) (observing that the actor must have no lawful right to be in the building); People v. Archuleta, 180 Colo. 156 , 503 P.2d 346 (1972) (noting the requirement of specific intent). 14 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.