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 2009–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2020Compare Padilla, supra at 1192, 1196 (finding statement that Appellant “just got out of jail” prejudicial as it was “a direct reference to Appellant’s recent incarceration”) with Edward, supra at 388 (finding witnesses’ testimony detailing fight leading to appellant’s arrest, gun dropped by appellant, and transporting appellant to police station did not prejudice defendant because witnesses did not specifically mention arrest or indicate filing criminal charges). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Padillagreen2 sentences2020Compare Padilla, supra at 1192, 1196 (finding statement that Appellant “just got out of jail” prejudicial as it was “a direct reference to Appellant’s recent incarceration”) with Edward, supra at 388 (finding witnesses’ testimony detailing fight leading to appellant’s arrest, gun dropped by appellant, and transporting appellant to police station did not prejudice defendant because witnesses did not specifically mention arrest or indicate filing criminal charges). 2020See Padilla, supra at 1192 . - 11 - J-S73025-19 Next, Reid argues the court abused its discretion by providing commentary during its jury instruction, without a factual or legal basis, which undermined Attorney Holt’s closing argument. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wattsgreen1 sentence2019See Commonwealth v. Watts, 23 A.3d 980, 987 (Pa. 2011) (“[S]ubsequent decisional law does not amount to a new ‘fact’ under section 9545(b)(1)(ii) of the PCRA.”). -7- J-S64039-18 & J-S64040-18 the documents that the Commonwealth produced when he finally did ask, or identify any “mischaracterizations” of Justice Castille that operated to dupe him in to declining to investigate any conflict. | 1 | 1 |
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Mooregreen1 sentence2018See generally id. | 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. Perfetto
green
2 sentences2017In light of Perfetto, 2017 WL 3776631 , however, appellee fails to satisfy the fourth Reid test prong. 2017In light of Perfetto, 2017 WL 3776631 , however, appellee fails to satisfy the fourth Reid test prong. | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Venetsanos v. Zucker, Facher & Zucker
green
2 sentences2009Co. Rptr. 400 (1981)). 11 The Court found persuasive a decision of the New Jersey Superior Court that had reviewed the relationship of the reinsurer, insurer and policyholder, explaining as follows: In Venetsanos [v. Zucker, Facher & Zucker, 271 N.J.Super. 459 , 638 A.2d 1333 (App.Div.1994) (discussing Reid)], the New Jersey Superior Court found the Reid factors to be present and held that the insured had a right to claim the reinsurance proceeds. 2009Co. Rptr. 400 (1981)). 11 The Court found persuasive a decision of the New Jersey Superior Court that had reviewed the relationship of the reinsurer, insurer and policyholder, explaining as follows: In Venetsanos [v. Zucker, Facher & Zucker, 271 N.J.Super. 459 , 638 A.2d 1333 (App.Div.1994) (discussing Reid)], the New Jersey Superior Court found the Reid factors to be present and held that the insured had a right to claim the reinsurance proceeds. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.