Durham rule (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

Durham rule in Pennsylvania

7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1960–1991 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. Sourbeergreen
pa · 1980 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991Compare Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, 492 Pa. 17 , 422 A.2d 116 (1980) (recognition of common law presumptions regarding capacity in criminal prosecution); In the Interest of E.J., 397 Pa.Super. 120 , 579 A.2d 960 (1990) (common law presumption not considered upon finding of double jeopardy).

1991Compare Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, 492 Pa. 17 , 422 A.2d 116 (1980) (recognition of common law presumptions regarding capacity in criminal prosecution); In the Interest of E.J., 397 Pa.Super. 120 , 579 A.2d 960 (1990) (common law presumption not considered upon finding of double jeopardy).

22
Stewart v. United Statesgreen
cadc · 1954 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1969–1969
2 sentences

1969See Stewart v. United States, 214 F. 2d 879 (D.C.

1969See Stewart v. United States, 214 F. 2d 879 (D.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
In the Interest of E.J. green
pa · 1990
2 sentences

1991Compare Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, 492 Pa. 17 , 422 A.2d 116 (1980) (recognition of common law presumptions regarding capacity in criminal prosecution); In the Interest of E.J., 397 Pa.Super. 120 , 579 A.2d 960 (1990) (common law presumption not considered upon finding of double jeopardy).

1991Compare Commonwealth v. Sourbeer, 492 Pa. 17 , 422 A.2d 116 (1980) (recognition of common law presumptions regarding capacity in criminal prosecution); In the Interest of E.J., 397 Pa.Super. 120 , 579 A.2d 960 (1990) (common law presumption not considered upon finding of double jeopardy).

21991–1991
Commonwealth v. Weinstein green
pa · 1971
2 sentences

1982Commonwealth v. Weinstein, 442 Pa. 70 , 274 A.2d 182 (1971). [4] Brawner is generally cited for its rejection of the Durham test for insanity in favor of the test set forth in Section 4.01 of ALI's Model Penal Code.

1982Commonwealth v. Weinstein, 442 Pa. 70 , 274 A.2d 182 (1971). [4] Brawner is generally cited for its rejection of the Durham test for insanity in favor of the test set forth in Section 4.01 of ALI's Model Penal Code.

11982–1982
Commonwealth v. Melton green
pa · 1962
2 sentences

1974Our Supreme Court has refused to abandon this test and to substitute in its place a psychiatrically devised rule or the so-called Durham rule. [2] Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343 , 178 A. 2d 728 (1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 851 .

1974Our Supreme Court has refused to abandon this test and to substitute in its place a psychiatrically devised rule or the so-called Durham rule. [2] Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343 , 178 A. 2d 728 (1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 851 .

11974–1974
Eastman v. New York green
scotus · 1962
2 sentences

1974Our Supreme Court has refused to abandon this test and to substitute in its place a psychiatrically devised rule or the so-called Durham rule. [2] Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343 , 178 A. 2d 728 (1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 851 .

1974Our Supreme Court has refused to abandon this test and to substitute in its place a psychiatrically devised rule or the so-called Durham rule. [2] Commonwealth v. Melton, 406 Pa. 343 , 178 A. 2d 728 (1962), cert. den., 371 U.S. 851 .

11974–1974
Thomas H. Washington, Jr. v. United States green
cadc · 1967
2 sentences

1970State v. Haggblom, 249 Ore. 676 , 439 P. 2d 1019 (1968). [5] The entire thrust of the dissenting opinion in Leland was that sanity is an element of the crime. [6] Annot., 17 A.L.R. 3d 146 , 195 (1968). [7] The Durham rule was explained in the case of Washington v. United States, 390 F. 2d 444 (D.C.

1970State v. Haggblom, 249 Ore. 676 , 439 P. 2d 1019 (1968). [5] The entire thrust of the dissenting opinion in Leland was that sanity is an element of the crime. [6] Annot., 17 A.L.R. 3d 146 , 195 (1968). [7] The Durham rule was explained in the case of Washington v. United States, 390 F. 2d 444 (D.C.

11970–1970
State v. Haggblom green
or · 1968
2 sentences

1970State v. Haggblom, 249 Ore. 676 , 439 P. 2d 1019 (1968). [5] The entire thrust of the dissenting opinion in Leland was that sanity is an element of the crime. [6] Annot., 17 A.L.R. 3d 146 , 195 (1968). [7] The Durham rule was explained in the case of Washington v. United States, 390 F. 2d 444 (D.C.

1970State v. Haggblom, 249 Ore. 676 , 439 P. 2d 1019 (1968). [5] The entire thrust of the dissenting opinion in Leland was that sanity is an element of the crime. [6] Annot., 17 A.L.R. 3d 146 , 195 (1968). [7] The Durham rule was explained in the case of Washington v. United States, 390 F. 2d 444 (D.C.

11970–1970
State v. Lucas green
nj · 1959
2 sentences

1960As one court concluded: “If it is true that, from a psychiatric viewpoint, anti-social behavior either evidences or equals mental disease or defect, then the Durham test comes perilously close to suggesting that proof of the commission of a crime is also prima facie evidence of the legal irresponsibility of the accused” : State v. Lucas, supra. “What of 'mental disease’ or 'defect’ as employed in the Durham test?

1960As one court concluded: “If it is true that, from a psychiatric viewpoint, anti-social behavior either evidences or equals mental disease or defect, then the Durham test comes perilously close to suggesting that proof of the commission of a crime is also prima facie evidence of the legal irresponsibility of the accused” : State v. Lucas, supra. “What of 'mental disease’ or 'defect’ as employed in the Durham test?

11960–1960

Where else courts name it

CA 8 (1962–1983) PA 7 (1960–1991) TX 6 (1968–2022) CT 5 (1959–1986) WA 5 (1957–2026) MI 4 (1968–1971) MA 3 (1958–1969) NJ 3 (1959–1990) MS 3 (1968–2007) MD 3 (1962–1965) DC 3 (1976–1980) RI 3 (1969–1978) AK 3 (1970–1985) IN 3 (1956–2017) ME 2 (1975–1979) GA 2 (1980–2020) AR 2 (1961–1970) TN 2 (2001–2017) MN 2 (1960–1972) FL 2 (1973–1999) SD 2 (1970–1980) KS 2 (1960–1996) VT 2 (1978–2006) NY 2 (1979–1994) UT 2 (1963–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check