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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Donald Roy Crispgreen2 sentences1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). 1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). | 2 | 2 |
Rivera v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). 1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Baezgreen1 sentence2025Commonwealth v. Baez, 21 A.3d 1280, 1286 (Pa. Super. 2011) (explaining that an “explicit waiver” of one’s Miranda rights is required under Pennsylvania law as demonstrated by “‘an outward manifestation of a waiver such as an oral, written or physical manifestation.’”) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
McTyre v. Pearsongreen1 sentence1975See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 402 U.S. 947 , 91 S.Ct. 1640 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Charles Raymond Hodge v. United States
green
2 sentences1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). 1976See United States v. Crisp, 435 F.2d 354 (7th Cir. 1971), cert. denied 402 U.S. 947 , 29 L.Ed.2d 116 (1971); Hodge v. United States, 392 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1968). | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Commonwealth v. Turetsky
green
1 sentence2017See Mallory, supra; Turetsky, supra. Accordingly, Appellant’s third issue merits no relief. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Reichenbach v. Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1996Blosser cites Reichenbach v. Civil Service Commission of the Borough of Wilkinsburg, 53 Pa.Cmwlth. 363 , 417 A.2d 1292 (1980), to support his assertion. 1996Blosser cites Reichenbach v. Civil Service Commission of the Borough of Wilkinsburg, 53 Pa.Cmwlth. 363 , 417 A.2d 1292 (1980), to support his assertion. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.
green
2 sentences1981Whatever the propriety of the court’s finding of not guilty, reprosecution is barred by “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 , 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1354 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). 1981Whatever the propriety of the court’s finding of not guilty, reprosecution is barred by “the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence.” United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571 , 97 S.Ct. 1349, 1354 , 51 L.Ed.2d 642 (1977). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Commonwealth v. Martin
green
1 sentence1976In Commonwealth v. Martin, Pa., 348 A.2d 391 (1975), where the defendant agreed to give an oral statement, but refused to sign the “Miranda rights” waiver form, the Court stated: “We do not doubt that in some situations a refusal of a person being questioned to sign a waiver form, even though followed by an apparent willingness to allow further questioning, can be indicative of confusion or ignorance such as to require the police to seek additional assurances of intelligence and understanding before proceeding further. [Citations omitted.] In other situations the absence of a written waiver ha | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.