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 1968–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johns v. Ciocigreen1 sentence2025The statutorily required factors are as follows: (a) Factors.--In ordering any form of custody, the court shall determine the best interest of the child by considering all relevant factors, giving weighted consideration to those factors which affect the safety of the child, including the following: (1) Which party is more likely to encourage and permit frequent and continuing contact between the child and another party. ____________________________________________ 3 “A party seeking modification of custody arrangements has the burden to show that modification is in the child's best interest.” | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Sarveygreen1 sentence2023Miles provides the proposition that an appellate court “must review the record and consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, the sentencing court’s observations of the defendant, the findings that formed the basis of the sentence, and the sentencing guidelines … with particular concern for whether the defendant received an individualized sentence.” Id., at 18, quoting Commonwealth v. Sarvey, 199 A.3d 436, 456 (Pa. Super. 2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Battsgreen2 sentences2017In its consideration of the statutorily required factors, 2 the trial court found that the crime was “horrendous” and negatively impacted the community; that Batts constituted a “severe threat to the public” and was “ ‘streetwise,’ with ‘a well-developed criminal mentality and the degree of maturity necessary to commit audacious criminal acts.’ ” Batts I, 66 A.3d at 288 -89 (quoting Trial Court Order, 2/21/2007, at 5-6). 2017In its consideration of the statutorily required factors,2 the trial court found that the crime was “horrendous” and negatively impacted the community; that Batts constituted a “severe threat to the public” and was “‘streetwise,’ with ‘a well-developed criminal mentality and the degree of maturity necessary to commit audacious criminal 2 In determining whether transferring the case to the juvenile court would serve the public interest, the sentencing court was required to consider: (A) the impact of the offense on the victim or victims; (B) the impact of the offense on the community; (C) the t | 1 | 1 |
School District v. Commonwealth, Department of Educationgreen2 sentences2002See also School District of Pittsburgh v. Department of Education, 492 Pa. 140 , 422 A.2d 1054 (1980), where reduction of a transportation subsidy was accomplished through a statutorily required hearing. 2002See also School District of Pittsburgh v. Department of Education, 492 Pa. 140 , 422 A.2d 1054 (1980), where reduction of a transportation subsidy was accomplished through a statutorily required hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc.green2 sentences1968Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts, This litigation presents but a single issue: are the findings of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board [hereinafter the Board] supported by the statutorily required standard, i.e., by “substantial and legally credible evidence.” Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of June 1, 1937, P. L. 1168, §9, as amended, 43 P.S. §211.9(b); see generally, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc., 345 Pa. 398 , 29 A. 2d 90 (1942). 1968Opinion by Mr. Justice Roberts, This litigation presents but a single issue: are the findings of the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board [hereinafter the Board] supported by the statutorily required standard, i.e., by “substantial and legally credible evidence.” Pennsylvania Labor Relations Act, Act of June 1, 1937, P. L. 1168, §9, as amended, 43 P.S. §211.9(b); see generally, Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Kaufmann Department Stores, Inc., 345 Pa. 398 , 29 A. 2d 90 (1942). | 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. Gorbea-Lespier
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 21-22 (unpaginated) (citing Gorbea-Lespier, 66 A.3d at 384 ). -7- J-S23014-20 Lastly, Appellant essentially argues that Officer Pasley, who escorted Appellant to the hospital for the blood draw, also failed to provide Appellant with the necessary implied consent warnings at the time of the blood draw, which is tantamount to a separate statutory violation supporting the suppression of the blood draw as nonconsensual. 2020Id. at 21-22 (unpaginated) (citing Gorbea-Lespier, 66 A.3d at 384 ). | 2 | 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.