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 3 courts 1917–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranchgreen2 sentences1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. 1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. | 1 | 1 |
Austin v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. 1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. | 1 | 1 |
California Department of Corrections v. Moralesgreen2 sentences1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. 1998See also, Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 , 113 S.Ct. 2801 (1993)\Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 , 114 S.Ct. 1937 (1994) and California Department of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 , 115 S.Ct. 1597 (1995) which shifted the focus of the law’s purpose to its effect and establishing that the appropriate punishment analysis is flexible and context dependent. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stover v. Spielman
green
1 sentence2018“When the covenant is for the performance of a single act or several acts, or the abstaining from doing some particular act or acts, which are not measurable by any exact pecuniary standard, and it is agreed that the party covenanting shall pay a stipulated sum as damages for a - 15 - J-A06022-18 violation of any of such covenants, that sum is to be deemed liquidated damages and not a penalty.” Id. at 516 (quoting Stover v. Spielman, 1 Pa. Super. 526 , 530–531 (1896)).2 We have no hesitation in concluding, as did the Hearing Officer and the trial court, that Paragraph 7, by its express terms, | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Geisinger Clinic v. Di Cuccio
green
1 sentence2018“When the covenant is for the performance of a single act or several acts, or the abstaining from doing some particular act or acts, which are not measurable by any exact pecuniary standard, and it is agreed that the party covenanting shall pay a stipulated sum as damages for a - 15 - J-A06022-18 violation of any of such covenants, that sum is to be deemed liquidated damages and not a penalty.” Id. at 516 (quoting Stover v. Spielman, 1 Pa. Super. 526 , 530–531 (1896)).2 We have no hesitation in concluding, as did the Hearing Officer and the trial court, that Paragraph 7, by its express terms, | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Commonwealth v. Gaffney
green
2 sentences2001Gaffney, 557 Pa. at 334 , 733 A.2d at 619 . 2001Gaffney, 557 Pa. at 334 , 733 A.2d at 619 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Commonwealth v. Gaffney
green
1 sentence1998These cases were synthesized in Pennsylvania in terms of an ex post facto analysis in Commonwealth v. Gaffney, supra, adopting the analysis of the Third Circuit as the law of Pennsylvania and providing that a measure is punishment if (1) the legislature’s actual purpose is punishment, (2) if the objective purpose is punishment, or (3) if the effect of the statute is so harsh that as a matter of degree it constitutes punishment. 11 A review of the legislative findings and declaration of policy by the legislature in enacting this legislation is instructive. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Commonwealth v. Wingait Farms
green
1 sentence1996Appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), in support of his argument an in rem civil forfeiture constitutes a punishment for violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 4 However, according to this Court’s reading of Halper as it relates to the matter before us, the Halper Court limited its holding to the circumstances before it and found a civil sanction will be deemed punishment for double jeopardy purposes where the fine is not characterized as remedial and the dollar | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Halper
red
2 sentences1996Appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), in support of his argument an in rem civil forfeiture constitutes a punishment for violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 4 However, according to this Court’s reading of Halper as it relates to the matter before us, the Halper Court limited its holding to the circumstances before it and found a civil sanction will be deemed punishment for double jeopardy purposes where the fine is not characterized as remedial and the dollar 1996Appellant relies on the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct. 1892 , 104 L.Ed.2d 487 (1989), in support of his argument an in rem civil forfeiture constitutes a punishment for violation of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 4 However, according to this Court’s reading of Halper as it relates to the matter before us, the Halper Court limited its holding to the circumstances before it and found a civil sanction will be deemed punishment for double jeopardy purposes where the fine is not characterized as remedial and the dollar | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Lanzetta v. New Jersey
green
1 sentence1952The constitutional guaranty of due process cannot be allowed to rest upon a support so equivocal." In Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1938) there was under consideration a statute which provided, "Any person not engaged in any lawful occupation, known to be a member of any gang consisting of two or more persons, who has been convicted at least three times of being a disorderly person, or who has been convicted of any crime . . . is declared to be a gangster . . ." and imposed severe penalties. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
County of Schuylkill v. Copley
green
1 sentence1935In this State the offense of receiving stolen goods is a statutory felony and punishable by separate or solitary confinement at labor not exceeding three years: Act of April 23, 1909, P. L. 159, sec. 1; Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 382, sec. 103; but the nature of the offense and not the punishment is the test in Pennsylvania: Schuylkill County v. Copley, 67 Pa. 386 ; Bailey v. Bailey, 12 Dist. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Funeral Benefit Ass'n v. James E. Hyatt Council, No. 923
neutral
1 sentence1917As we held, in construing this same by-law in Funeral Benefit Association v. Hyatt Council, 62 Pa. Superior Ct. 578 , “The action of the council was voluntary in refusing to pay the assessment, and we are not concerned with the reasons prompting its action. | 1 | 1917–1917 |
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.