7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. S. Sam Caldwellgreen1 sentence2025See United States v. Caldwell, 776 F.2d 989, 998 (11th Cir. 1985) (“The more speculative or unsubstantiated the allegation of [jury] misconduct, the less the burden to investigate.”). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Jeter, S.green1 sentence2025See Jeter, 296 A.3d at 1197 As such, because testimony of the deliberative process is prohibited absent an exception, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant an evidentiary hearing to explore the precise nature of the conjectural allegations contained in Hall’s motion. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Manniongreen1 sentence2024See Mannion, supra. Nevertheless, this is not dispositive of the issue before us because transportation of a defendant is but one factor that we must consider in addressing the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interaction. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Santiago, A., Aplt.green1 sentence2024We have reviewed the video evidence, as discussed infra, and conclude that the trial court’s recitation is accurate. 4 35 P.S. § 780-113(a)(16). 5 Id. at § 780-113(a)(32). 6 “The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine prohibits the admission of evidence at trial that was tainted by unconstitutional actions by law enforcement officials.” Commonwealth v. Santiago, 209 A.3d 912, 914 (Pa. 2019). -3- J-A01035-24 subsequently-seized heroin. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Lantzygreen2 sentences2016Hall, 771 A.2d at 1235 (citing Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214 , 736 A.2d 564, 569-70 (1999) (“the PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction claims seeking restoration of appellate rights due to counsel’s failure to perfect a direct appeal”)). 2016Hall, 771 A.2d at 1235 (citing Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214 , 736 A.2d 564, 569-70 (1999) (“the PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction claims seeking restoration of appellate rights due to counsel’s failure to perfect a direct appeal”)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Pettus
green
2 sentences2018Pettus, supra. While he does make bare allegations that the victim had made multiple false reports against other individuals, he cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal. 2018Pettus, supra. While he does make bare allegations that the victim had made multiple false reports against other individuals, he cannot raise this issue for the first time on appeal. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Barbaro
green
1 sentence2018Barbaro, supra. Because Hall’s claim is frivolous, we permit counsel to withdraw. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Hall
green
2 sentences2016Hall, 771 A.2d at 1235 (citing Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 558 Pa. 214 , 736 A.2d 564, 569-70 (1999) (“the PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction claims seeking restoration of appellate rights due to counsel’s failure to perfect a direct appeal”)). 2016Hall, 771 A.2d at 1235 (citing Commonwealth v. Lantzy, 736 A.2d 564, 569-70 (Pa. 1999) (“the [J-20-2016] - 10 PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for post-conviction claims seeking restoration of appellate rights due to counsel’s failure to perfect a direct appeal”)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Commonwealth v. Miller
green
2 sentences2003This ruling also embraces the disclosure of information that would lead directly to the ascertainment of the identity of the informant.” Miller, 518 A.2d at 1195 . ¶ 9 In the present case, Appellant contended in his omnibus pre-trial motion that “it is believed and therefore averred that no confidential informant purchased drugs from the defendant within forty-eight hours of applying for the search warrant as alleged.” Omnibus Pretrial Motion ¶ 6. 2003This ruling also embraces the disclosure of information that would lead directly to the ascertainment of the identity of the informant.” Miller, 518 A.2d at 1195 . ¶ 9 In the present case, Appellant contended in his omnibus pre-trial motion that “it is believed and therefore averred that no confidential informant purchased drugs from the defendant within forty-eight hours of applying for the search warrant as alleged.” Omnibus Pretrial Motion ¶ 6. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Commonwealth v. Bonasorte
green
2 sentences1989Commonwealth v. Bonasorte, supra 337 Pa.Super. at 355 , 486 A.2d at 1374 . 1989Commonwealth v. Bonasorte, supra 337 Pa.Super. at 355 , 486 A.2d at 1374 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.