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 1 courts 1976–2023 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. Pitnergreen1 sentence2023See Commonwealth v. Pitner, 928 A.2d 1104, 1109 (Pa. Super. 2007) (holding that a co-defendant’s prior statements relevant to his own guilty plea were admissible as substantive evidence because they were inconsistent with co-defendant’s trial testimony and he was subject to cross- examination). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wynngreen1 sentence2023Although this Court rejected Campbell’s claim regarding authentication, we concluded that the claim regarding the relevancy and prejudicial nature of the recorded evidence was waived because Campbell failed to “move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction or any other relief based on the prejudicial nature of the recorded evidence[.]” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 179 A.3d 600 (Pa. Super. 2017), non- precedential decision at 25. - 15 - J-S07026-23 Our standard of review regarding the admission of evidence is well settled: “It is well settled that the admissibility of evidence is a matter | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylorgreen1 sentence2019Second, our Supreme Court has held “a conclusion that previous counsel was ineffective is not a newly discovered ‘fact’ entitling Appellant to the benefit of the exception for [newly-discovered facts].” Commonwealth v. Gamboa–Taylor, 753 A.2d 780, 785 (Pa. 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Griffingreen1 sentence2019See id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gandygreen1 sentence2016Although neither the trial court nor the Commonwealth raised this issue, “it is well-settled that we may raise it sua sponte since a question of timeliness implicates the jurisdiction of our Court.” Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 121 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899, 902 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Callahangreen1 sentence2016Although neither the trial court nor the Commonwealth raised this issue, “it is well-settled that we may raise it sua sponte since a question of timeliness implicates the jurisdiction of our Court.” Commonwealth v. Callahan, 101 A.3d 118, 121 (Pa. Super. 2014), quoting Commonwealth v. Gandy, 38 A.3d 899, 902 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Walter Sowizral v. Mrs. Adele M. Hughesgreen2 sentences1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. 1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. | 1 | 1 |
Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corporationgreen2 sentences1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. 1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Martinez
neutral
1 sentence2023Although this Court rejected Campbell’s claim regarding authentication, we concluded that the claim regarding the relevancy and prejudicial nature of the recorded evidence was waived because Campbell failed to “move for a mistrial or request a curative instruction or any other relief based on the prejudicial nature of the recorded evidence[.]” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 179 A.3d 600 (Pa. Super. 2017), non- precedential decision at 25. - 15 - J-S07026-23 Our standard of review regarding the admission of evidence is well settled: “It is well settled that the admissibility of evidence is a matter | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Patterson
green
1 sentence2019Even though there has been a breakdown in court operations that could have excused an untimely filing of the notice of appeal, see Commonwealth v. Patterson, 940 A.2d 493 , 498- 99 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citation omitted), Campbell’s notice of appeal is technically timely in any event, as December 20 is exactly thirty days after November 20. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2004The trial judge rendered its decision before the United States Supreme Court decision in State Farm v. Campbell, [ 538 U.S. 408 ] 123 S.Ct. [1513]1512 [ 155 L.Ed.2d 585 ] (2003) and therefore did not consider the Campbell factors when reaching its decision. 2004The trial judge rendered its decision before the United States Supreme Court decision in State Farm v. Campbell, [ 538 U.S. 408 ] 123 S.Ct. [1513]1512 [ 155 L.Ed.2d 585 ] (2003) and therefore did not consider the Campbell factors when reaching its decision. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Chaput v. Finnegan
green
2 sentences1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. 1976See, e. g., Sowizral v. Hughes, 333 F.2d 829, 833 (3d Cir. 1964) (Forman, J.); Ward v. McDan Dav Leasing Corp., 340 F.Supp. 86, 93 (W.D.Pa.1972), aff’d mem., 485 F.2d 678 (3d Cir. 1973). *282 —D— On retrial, the charge on skidding should not employ the language disapproved by the Supreme Court in Kralik v. Cromwell, supra. For example, the judge is not to charge that “skidding itself is not negligence,” or that the plaintiff, must prove that the defendant mismanaged his car before it skidded. | 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.