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 2019–2026 5 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. Feigherygreen2 sentences2023See Commonwealth v. Feighery, 661 A.2d 437, 439 (Pa. Super. 1995) (remanding for “fulfillment of the notice requirements” of the predecessor rule to Rule 907, and stating, “It is, of course, clear that the notice requirement of the intention to dismiss, is mandatory”). 2022See Commonwealth v. Feighery, 661 A.2d 437, 439 (Pa. Super. 1995) (remanding for “fulfillment of the notice requirements” of the predecessor rule to Rule 907, and stating, “It is, of course, clear that the notice requirement of the intention to dismiss, is mandatory”). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Montalvogreen1 sentence2026See Montalvo, 641 A.2d at 1185 . - 35 - J-S03041-26 demonstrated that any alleged omission from the record impairs meaningful appellate review or resulted in prejudice. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McGillgreen1 sentence2024Rule 905 was created “to provide PCRA petitioners with a legitimate opportunity to present their claims to the PCRA court in a manner sufficient to avoid dismissal due to a correctable defect in claim pleading or presentation.” Commonwealth v. McGill, 832 A.2d 1014, 1024 (Pa. 2003), citing Commonwealth v. - 14 - J-S23034- 24 Williams, 782 A.2d 517, 526-27 (Pa. 2001) (interpreting the predecessor rule to Rule 905 to require the PCRA court to allow amendment of the petition so that the petitioner can make “a sufficient offer … to warrant merits review”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Stosselgreen1 sentence2023Also, as to representation, when an indigent, first-time PCRA petition is denied the right to counsel, this Court “is required to raise this error sua sponte and remand for the PCRA court to correct that mistake.” Commonwealth v. Stossel, 17 A.3d 1286, 1290 (Pa. Super. 2011) (emphasis added). | 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. Martin
green
1 sentence2021Appellant further argues that we are bound by our en banc decision in Commonwealth v. Martin, 335 A.2d 424 (Pa. Super. 1975), which, according to Appellant, interpreted the predecessor rule to Rule 706(C) as mandating an ability-to-pay hearing prior to the imposition of costs. ____________________________________________ 4 Rule 706(C) reads as follows: (C) The court, in determining the amount and method of payment of a fine or costs shall, insofar as is just and practicable, consider the burden upon the defendant by reason of the defendant’s financial means, including the defendant's ability t | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Parks
green
1 sentence2020We reasoned: “Absent a formal docket entry detailing the manner of notice, there is nothing to suggest that [the a]ppellant’s counsel was properly ____________________________________________ 6 Parks addressed Rule 9025, the predecessor rule to current Rule 114. -5- J-A17018-20 provided by the Clerk of Courts, in a timely fashion, a copy of the Trial Court’s order requiring him to file a Rule 1925 (b) statement.” Id. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Commonwealth v. Hess
green
1 sentence2020Additionally, in Commonwealth v. Hess, 810 A.2d 1249 (Pa. 2002), the trial court stated it had ordered the defendant to submit Rule 1925(b) statements; however, the defendant claimed he never received the order. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.