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 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Dennisgreen2 sentences2025See id. at 306 . 2025See id. at 305-06 . - 13 - Further, the Court found Bane was not willing to testify in Dennis’ defense because, even if they believed that Bane was at the courthouse during trial as she testified to, she did not contact counsel in an attempt to testify on Dennis’ behalf. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Ivygreen2 sentences2018See Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 255 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “authority of an appellate court to conduct review of a pretrial order is a jurisdictional matter.”); see also id. (stating that “[t]he general rule in criminal cases is that a defendant ____________________________________________ 2 The docket and record do not indicate any action on the Motion for Reconsideration. 2018See Commonwealth v. Ivy, 146 A.3d 241, 255 (Pa. Super. 2016) (stating that “authority of an appellate court to conduct review of a pretrial order is a jurisdictional matter.”); see also id. (stating that “[t]he general rule in criminal cases is that a defendant ____________________________________________ 2 The docket and record do not indicate any action on the Motion for Reconsideration. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Montalvo, N., Apltgreen1 sentence2017See id. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Ullmangreen1 sentence2016See Ir re Ullman, 995 A.2d 1207, 1211-12 (Pa.Super. 2010) (“[T]his Court is willing to liberally construe materials filed by a pro se litigant, [however] pro se status confers no special benefit upon the appellant.”). | 1 | 1 |
American Communications Assn. v. Doudsgreen2 sentences1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) 1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) | 1 | 1 |
Dennis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) 1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) | 1 | 1 |
In Re Littlegreen2 sentences1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) 1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hendersongreen2 sentences1975Having cited Collins, supra, our Supreme Court has further stated that “[t] he application of the standard requires a consideration of the reasonable inferences which the jury (or fact-finder) may make from the prosecution’s evidence.” Commonwealth v. Henderson, 451 Pa. 452, 454 , 304 A.2d 154, 156 (1973). 1975Having cited Collins, supra, our Supreme Court has further stated that “[t] he application of the standard requires a consideration of the reasonable inferences which the jury (or fact-finder) may make from the prosecution’s evidence.” Commonwealth v. Henderson, 451 Pa. 452, 454 , 304 A.2d 154, 156 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thomas v. City of Philadelphia
green
2 sentences1993The majority purports to distinguish Dennis’ claim from cases where the Court determined that special relationships were created between an individual and the police to invoke exception to the no-duty rule articulated in Thomas v. City of Philadelphia, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 121, 574 A.2d 1205 , appeal denied, 527 Pa. 659 , 593 A.2d 429 (1990). 1993The majority purports to distinguish Dennis’ claim from cases where the Court determined that special relationships were created between an individual and the police to invoke exception to the no-duty rule articulated in Thomas v. City of Philadelphia, 133 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 121, 574 A.2d 1205 , appeal denied, 527 Pa. 659 , 593 A.2d 429 (1990). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal.
green
2 sentences1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) 1979Though the clear and present danger test retains a limited viability in the area of contempt of court, see, In re Little, 404 U.S. 553, 555 (1972), it essentially fell by the wayside in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 510 (1951), where the Court modified the old rule into a relative test wherein ‘“[courts] must aslc whether the gravity of the “evil,” discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger.’ ” The Dennis test evolved into the so-called “balancing” test of American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 399 (1950) | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Commonwealth v. Collins
green
2 sentences1975In applying the Dennis standard, our Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114 , 259 A.2d 160 (1969), has said that such a standard allows the trier of fact to function and that any rule more favorable to a defendant would take away this fact finding obligation. 1975In applying the Dennis standard, our Superior Court in Commonwealth v. Collins, 436 Pa. 114 , 259 A.2d 160 (1969), has said that such a standard allows the trier of fact to function and that any rule more favorable to a defendant would take away this fact finding obligation. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.