7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 4 courts 1977–2024 2 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, Aplt. v. Hale, T.green1 sentence2024See id. at § 6105(a.1)(1); see also Commonwealth v. Hale, 128 A.3d 781, 782 (Pa. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hansongreen1 sentence2024With respect to subsection 6105(a.1)(1.1)(i)(B), our Supreme Court has interpreted the “physical possession or control of a firearm” language to mean “the knowing exercise of power over a weapon, which may be proven through evidence of a direct, physical association between the defendant and the weapon or evidence of constructive control.” Commonwealth v. Hanson, 82 A.3d 1023, 1036-37 (Pa. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Holt v. NAVAPROgreen1 sentence2018It is settled that the felony rule “applies to discourage courts from assisting convicted felons in collecting damages that would not have occurred absent the criminal conviction.” Holt v. Navarro, 932 A.2d 915, 920 (Pa. Super. 2007) (citing Mineo v. Eureka Sec. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamalgreen1 sentence2017Appellant‘s Brief at 1-2 (some capitalization omitted). - 10 - J-S78039-16 ―On appeal from the denial of PCRA relief, our standard and scope of review is limited to determining whether the PCRA court‘s findings are supported by the record and without legal error.‖ Commonwealth v. Abu- Jamal, 941 A.2d 1263, 1267 (Pa. 2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Victoria Gardens Condominium Ass'n. v. Kennett Tp. of Chester
green
1 sentence2023Ass’n v. Kennett Twp., 23 A.3d 1098 , 1103 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (additional quotation marks omitted). 2 except that the court may waive this condition if the court determines that the Congress of the United States has not appropriated sufficient funds to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to grant relief to applicants eligible for the relief. (ii) A period of ten years, not including any time spent in incarceration, has elapsed since the most recent conviction of the applicant of a crime enumerated in subsection (b), a felony violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmeti | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Gagliardi
green
1 sentence2019Id. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Lutz
green
2 sentences1986We recognize that the general assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this commonwealth. 1 Pa.C.S. §1922(3); Commonwealth v. Lutz, 512 Pa. 192 , 516 A.2d 339 (1986). 1986We recognize that the general assembly does not intend to violate the Constitution of the United States or of this commonwealth. 1 Pa.C.S. §1922(3); Commonwealth v. Lutz, 512 Pa. 192 , 516 A.2d 339 (1986). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Yuknavich
green
2 sentences1977Thus, since to establish Geiger’s guilt of murder of the second degree, the Commonwealth at the degree-of-guilt hearing was only required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the death of the victim occurred while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony,” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b) (Supp. 1977-78), we need not here determine whether, as Geiger argues, the traditional imputation of homicidal malice based upon proof only of a killing by a co-felon in furtherance of the underlying felony is a violation of due process. 3 See and compare Commonwealth v. 1977Thus, since to establish Geiger’s guilt of murder of the second degree, the Commonwealth at the degree-of-guilt hearing was only required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the death of the victim occurred while defendant was engaged as a principal or an accomplice in the perpetration of a felony,” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2502(b) (Supp. 1977-78), we need not here determine whether, as Geiger argues, the traditional imputation of homicidal malice based upon proof only of a killing by a co-felon in furtherance of the underlying felony is a violation of due process. 3 See and compare Commonwealth v. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Smith v. Myers
green
2 sentences1977Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472 (1958). 1977Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472 (1958). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Commonwealth v. Redline
green
2 sentences1977Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472 (1958). 1977Smith v. Myers, 438 Pa. 218 , 261 A.2d 550 (1970); Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486 , 137 A.2d 472 (1958). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.