7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 3 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. Jacksongreen2 sentences2024See L.P., 137 A.3d at 637 (appellate courts presume a decertification court considered the entire record when assessing the amenability factors); see also Jackson, 722 A.2d at 1032 (stating the “existence of facts in the record that would support a contrary result does not demonstrate a gross abuse of discretion.”). 2024See L.P., 137 A.3d at 637 (appellate courts presume a decertification court considered the entire record when assessing the amenability factors); see also Jackson, 722 A.2d at 1032 (stating the “existence of facts in the record that would support a contrary result does not demonstrate a gross abuse of discretion.”). | 6 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2021Commonwealth v. Sanders, 814 A.2d 1248, 1251 (Pa. Super. 2003). 2011Commonwealth v. Jackson, 555 Pa. 37, 44 , 722 A.2d 1030, 1033 (Pa. 1999); Sanders, 814 A.2d at 1251 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Ruffingreen2 sentences2024Although the Juvenile Act requires a decertification court to consider all of the foregoing factors, “it is silent as to the weight that should be assessed to each factor.” Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 10 A.3d 336, 339 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also ____________________________________________ 11 We hereinafter refer to the factors contained in subsection 6355(a)(4)(iii)(G) as “the amenability factors.” - 14 - J-S35021-24 id. (stating that although a decertification court must consider all the subsection 6355(a)(4)(iii) factors, “it need not address, seriatim, the applicability and importance of each 2024Although the Juvenile Act requires a decertification court to consider all of the foregoing factors, “it is silent as to the weight that should be assessed to each factor.” Commonwealth v. Ruffin, 10 A.3d 336, 339 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also ____________________________________________ 11 We hereinafter refer to the factors contained in subsection 6355(a)(4)(iii)(G) as “the amenability factors.” - 14 - J-S35021-24 id. (stating that although a decertification court must consider all the subsection 6355(a)(4)(iii) factors, “it need not address, seriatim, the applicability and importance of each | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. L.P.green2 sentences2024See L.P., 137 A.3d at 637 (appellate courts presume a decertification court considered the entire record when assessing the amenability factors); see also Jackson, 722 A.2d at 1032 (stating the “existence of facts in the record that would support a contrary result does not demonstrate a gross abuse of discretion.”). 2024See L.P., 137 A.3d at 637 (appellate courts presume a decertification court considered the entire record when assessing the amenability factors); see also Jackson, 722 A.2d at 1032 (stating the “existence of facts in the record that would support a contrary result does not demonstrate a gross abuse of discretion.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.