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 2016–2026 4 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. Walshgreen2 sentences2021Commonwealth v. Walsh, 2012 PA Super 9 , 36 A.3d 613, 617 (Pa. Super. 2012). 2021Commonwealth v. Walsh, 2012 PA Super 9 , 36 A.3d 613, 617 (Pa. Super. 2012). | 2 | 2 |
Bhatia, S. v. Fernandez, C.green1 sentence2026You have to meet your burden of proof and you haven’t done that.” Id. at 34-35; see also Bhatia v. Fernandez, 319 A.3d 517, 520 (Pa. Super. 2024) (reiterating that a PFA petitioner is required to establish abuse by a preponderance of the evidence). -2- Preliminarily, we recognize that this Court reviews a PFA order for an error of law or an abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
Kaur, K. v. Singh, M.green1 sentence2026Kaur v. Singh, 259 A.3d 505, 509 (Pa. Super. 2021). | 1 | 1 |
Ferko-Fox v. Foxgreen1 sentence2018See, e.g., Ferko–Fox v. Fox, 68 A.3d 917, 920 (Pa. Super. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violencegreen2 sentences2016See also Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 , 104 S.Ct. 3065 , 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984) (observing that content-neutral restrictions on *1229 speech are only valid if they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest unrelated to speech, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information). 5 A review of the PFA Order at bar reveals that its proscription suffers from none of the infirmities Appellant'alleges in his argument, for the proscription in quest 2016See also Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288 , 104 S.Ct. 3065 , 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984) (observing that content-neutral restrictions on *1229 speech are only valid if they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest unrelated to speech, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information). 5 A review of the PFA Order at bar reveals that its proscription suffers from none of the infirmities Appellant'alleges in his argument, for the proscription in quest | 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. McClendon
green
1 sentence2024As stated above, the trial court provided its reasons: it found it had warned and instructed Hubbell “literally days before” the PFA order violation to stay away from D.S., but Hubbell was “unable to leave [her] alone.” Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Lutes
green
1 sentence2023Commonwealth v. Lutes, 793 A.2d 949 (Pa. Super. 2002). -8- On appeal, Appellant maintains that his conduct – i.e., his reentry of the home for medication – was not threatening, nor was his conduct the “evil sought to be prevented” by the Legislature’s criminalization of a PFA order violation. | 1 | 2023–2023 |