53 Pennsylvania opinions name it 11 courts 1922–2025 1 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. O'Bidosgreen2 sentences2015See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa. Super. 2004). 2015See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa. Super. 2004). | 8 | 8 |
Commonwealth v. O'Connellgreen2 sentences1994In addition, the Commonwealth Court further defined its prior holdings on chemical testing, and pronounced that the police's duty to inform an arrestee that he does not have the right to speak with an attorney in conjunction with submitting to the breathalyzer test, obtains "only where the arrestee responds to a request that he take the test with an inquiry regarding whether he may consult with someone before making a decision." Id. 1994In addition, the Commonwealth Court further defined its prior holdings on chemical testing, and pronounced that the police’s duty to inform an arrestee that he does not have the right to speak with an attorney in conjunction with submitting to the breathalyzer test, obtains “only where the arrestee responds to a request that he take the test with an inquiry regarding whether he may consult with someone before making a decision.” Id. | 2 | 5 |
Commonwealth v. Browngreen2 sentences2018The test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether "the Commonwealth established beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements, considering all the evidence admitted at trial, and drawing all reasonable inferences 12 therefrom in favor of the Commonwealth." Commonwealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426, 430 (Pa. Super. 2018Generally, the test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether ...the Commonwealth established beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements, considering all the evidence admitted at trial, and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of the Commonwealth ... .'' Common-.vealth v. Brown, 48 A.3d 426� 430 (Pa. Super. | 2 | 3 |
Patten v. Vosegreen2 sentences1994As stated by this Court in Patten v. Vose, 404 Pa.Super. 426 , 590 A.2d 1307, 1309, 1310 (1991) (Citations omitted: The test for applying the doctrine of laches has been stated as follows: The party asserting laches must show, first, a delay arising from the other party’s failure to exercise due diligence, and second, prejudice from the delay.... 1994As stated by this Court in Patten v. Vose, 404 Pa.Super. 426 , 590 A.2d 1307, 1309, 1310 (1991) (Citations omitted: The test for applying the doctrine of laches has been stated as follows: The party asserting laches must show, first, a delay arising from the other party’s failure to exercise due diligence, and second, prejudice from the delay.... | 2 | 2 |
Koval v. Liberty Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2002Second, the challenged provision must ‘unreasonably favor’ the other party to the contract.” Koval v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 366 Pa.Super. 415 , 531 A.2d 487, 491 (1987). 2002Second, the challenged provision must ‘unreasonably favor’ the other party to the contract.” Koval v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 366 Pa.Super. 415 , 531 A.2d 487, 491 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Rosadogreen1 sentence2018Ct. 2012) (citation omitted), The entire record must be evaluated in "aggregate and not as fragments isolated from the totality of evidence." Commonwealth v. Rosado, 684 A.2d 605, 607-08 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hannibal, S., Aplt.green1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Hannibal, 156 A.3d 197,207 (Pa. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Donahuegreen2 sentences2016The test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was summarized in Commonwealth v. Donahue, 428 Pa.Super. 259, 272 , 630 A.2d 1238, 1244 (1993), as follows: The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 2016The test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was summarized in Commonwealth v. Donahue, 428 Pa.Super. 259, 272 , 630 A.2d 1238, 1244 (1993), as follows: The standard we apply in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the verdict winner, there is sufficient evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 1 |
Corabi v. Curtis Publishing Co.green2 sentences2011Whether an allegedly libelous statement is susceptible to a defamatory meaning is a question of law. “[I]t is the function of the court, in the first instance, to determine whether the communication complained of is capable of a defamatory meaning” Corabi v. Curtis Pub., 441 Pa. 432, 442 , 273 A.2d 899, 904 (Pa. 1971) (discussing the test and factors to be considered when determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning). 2011Whether an allegedly libelous statement is susceptible to a defamatory meaning is a question of law. “[I]t is the function of the court, in the first instance, to determine whether the communication complained of is capable of a defamatory meaning” Corabi v. Curtis Pub., 441 Pa. 432, 442 , 273 A.2d 899, 904 (Pa. 1971) (discussing the test and factors to be considered when determining whether a statement is capable of defamatory meaning). | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. O'BIDOSgreen2 sentences2007See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa. 696 , 860 A.2d 123 (2004). ¶ 11 “A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 369 (Pa.Super.2006) (quotation omitted). 2007See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa. 696 , 860 A.2d 123 (2004). ¶ 11 “A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 369 (Pa.Super.2006) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Rathfongreen1 sentence2007See Commonwealth v. O’Bidos, 849 A.2d 243, 249 (Pa.Super.2004), appeal denied, 580 Pa. 696 , 860 A.2d 123 (2004). ¶ 11 “A criminal defendant has the right to effective counsel during a plea process as well as during trial.” Commonwealth v. Rathfon, 899 A.2d 365, 369 (Pa.Super.2006) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Terrence L. Adkins v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed.Cir.2002) (noting that courts are competent to review compliance with an applicable statute or regulation, for "[t]he military no less than any other organ of the government is bound by statute, and even when granted unfettered discretion by Congress the military must abide by its own procedural regulations should it choose to promulgate them.”); Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed.Cir.1995) (observing that a claim of procedural violations is subject to judicial review because “the test or standard against which this court mea | 1 | 1 |
Daniel A. Lindsay v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2003See Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed.Cir.2002) (noting that courts are competent to review compliance with an applicable statute or regulation, for "[t]he military no less than any other organ of the government is bound by statute, and even when granted unfettered discretion by Congress the military must abide by its own procedural regulations should it choose to promulgate them.”); Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed.Cir.1995) (observing that a claim of procedural violations is subject to judicial review because “the test or standard against which this court mea | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hardcastlegreen2 sentences1997The test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236, 246 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1105 (1988). 1997The test for a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and drawing all proper inferences favorable to the Commonwealth, the jury could reasonably have determined all elements of the crime to have been established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Hardcastle, 519 Pa. 236, 246 , 546 A.2d 1101, 1105 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
First National Bank of Atlanta v. Bartow County Board of Tax Assessorsgreen2 sentences1997See First National Bank v. Bartow County Board of Tax Assessors, 470 U.S. 583, 593 , 105 S.Ct. 1516, 1522 , 84 L.Ed.2d 535 (1985). . 1997See First National Bank v. Bartow County Board of Tax Assessors, 470 U.S. 583, 593 , 105 S.Ct. 1516, 1522 , 84 L.Ed.2d 535 (1985). . | 1 | 1 |
Jackman v. Pelusigreen2 sentences1991It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for “laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.” Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa.Super. 361, 368 , 550 A.2d 199, 202 (1988), quoting Kehoe v. Gilroy, 320 Pa.Super. 206, 212 , 467 A.2d 1, 4 (1983). 1991It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for “laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.” Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa.Super. 361, 368 , 550 A.2d 199, 202 (1988), quoting Kehoe v. Gilroy, 320 Pa.Super. 206, 212 , 467 A.2d 1, 4 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
Kehoe v. Gilroygreen2 sentences1991It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for “laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.” Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa.Super. 361, 368 , 550 A.2d 199, 202 (1988), quoting Kehoe v. Gilroy, 320 Pa.Super. 206, 212 , 467 A.2d 1, 4 (1983). 1991It is not enough to show delay arising from failure to exercise due diligence; for “laches will not be imputed where no injury has resulted to the other party by reason of the delay.” Jackman v. Pelusi, 379 Pa.Super. 361, 368 , 550 A.2d 199, 202 (1988), quoting Kehoe v. Gilroy, 320 Pa.Super. 206, 212 , 467 A.2d 1, 4 (1983). | 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. Moser
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. | 6 | 2014–2015 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025(See (See id. id. at unnumbered p. at unnumbered 22, 111). p. 22,1) agrees, that there is arguable The Commonwealth concedes, and the Court agrees, arguable merit menit to the claim that defense counsel should have attempted attempted to procure procure the CYS files as possibly containing possibly containing statements of witnesses, witnesses, including including the minor victim, about the alleged alleged incidents giwing giving rise to the charges. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Commonwealth v. Fulton
green
1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Fulton the claim Commonwealth Fulton, 830 830 A.2d 567 , 572 A.2d 567 Pa Super 572 (Pa. 2003 If Super. 2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Jackson v. State
green
1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Fulton the claim Commonwealth Fulton, 830 830 A.2d 567 , 572 A.2d 567 Pa Super 572 (Pa. 2003 If Super. 2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
2 sentences2013In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011), a case involving a forensic laboratory report of defendant’s blood, the Supreme Court reiterated the “primary purpose” test, 11 holding the laboratory report certifying the defendant’s BAC was “testimonial” and failure to call the analyst who administered and certified the test was a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. 2013In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2705 , 180 L.Ed.2d 610 (2011), a case involving a forensic laboratory report of defendant’s blood, the Supreme Court reiterated the “primary purpose” test, 11 holding the laboratory report certifying the defendant’s BAC was “testimonial” and failure to call the analyst who administered and certified the test was a violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL
green
2 sentences2005Com., Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242 , 555 A.2d 873 (1989). 2005Com., Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. O’Connell, 521 Pa. 242 , 555 A.2d 873 (1989). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hodges v. Callaway
green
1 sentence2003See Lindsay v. United States, 295 F.3d 1252, 1257 (Fed.Cir.2002) (noting that courts are competent to review compliance with an applicable statute or regulation, for "[t]he military no less than any other organ of the government is bound by statute, and even when granted unfettered discretion by Congress the military must abide by its own procedural regulations should it choose to promulgate them.”); Adkins v. United States, 68 F.3d 1317, 1323 (Fed.Cir.1995) (observing that a claim of procedural violations is subject to judicial review because “the test or standard against which this court mea | 1 | 2003–2003 |
M'culloch v. State of Maryland
green
2 sentences1997Although the Court in Smith set forth this test under the doctrine of constitutional intergovernmental immunity established in McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the federal statute exempting United States obligations is "principally a restatement of the constitution rule", Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392, 397 , 103 S.Ct. 692, 695 , 74 L.Ed.2d 562 (1983), and the test is equally applicable to determine the applicability of the statutory exemption. 1997Although the Court in Smith set forth this test under the doctrine of constitutional intergovernmental immunity established in McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the federal statute exempting United States obligations is "principally a restatement of the constitution rule", Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392, 397 , 103 S.Ct. 692, 695 , 74 L.Ed.2d 562 (1983), and the test is equally applicable to determine the applicability of the statutory exemption. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner
green
2 sentences1997Although the Court in Smith set forth this test under the doctrine of constitutional intergovernmental immunity established in McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the federal statute exempting United States obligations is "principally a restatement of the constitution rule", Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392, 397 , 103 S.Ct. 692, 695 , 74 L.Ed.2d 562 (1983), and the test is equally applicable to determine the applicability of the statutory exemption. 1997Although the Court in Smith set forth this test under the doctrine of constitutional intergovernmental immunity established in McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the federal statute exempting United States obligations is "principally a restatement of the constitution rule", Memphis Bank & Trust Co. v. Garner, 459 U.S. 392, 397 , 103 S.Ct. 692, 695 , 74 L.Ed.2d 562 (1983), and the test is equally applicable to determine the applicability of the statutory exemption. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
McFadden v. Commonwealth
yellow
2 sentences1989The duty arises only where the arrestee responds to the request that he take the test with an inquiry regarding whether he may consult with someone before making a decision.” O’ Connell, supra. In McFadden v. Commonwealth, 108 Pa. Commw. 194 , 529 A.2d 88 (1987), McFadden was given his Miranda rights and was then asked to take a breathalyzer test and he refused. 1989The duty arises only where the arrestee responds to the request that he take the test with an inquiry regarding whether he may consult with someone before making a decision.” O’ Connell, supra. In McFadden v. Commonwealth, 108 Pa. Commw. 194 , 529 A.2d 88 (1987), McFadden was given his Miranda rights and was then asked to take a breathalyzer test and he refused. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Odgers v. Com., Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Rev.
green
2 sentences1989On October 2, 1981, the PFT, the Philadelphia School District and the Office of Unemployment Security entered a test claim agreement providing that the decision on [appellees’] claims would be dispositive of similar claims by other School District employees. 514 Pa. at 380 n. 1, 525 A.2d at 359 n. 1 (emphasis added). 1989On October 2, 1981, the PFT, the Philadelphia School District and the Office of Unemployment Security entered a test claim agreement providing that the decision on [appellees’] claims would be dispositive of similar claims by other School District employees. 514 Pa. at 380 n. 1, 525 A.2d at 359 n. 1 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Codispoti v. Pennsylvania
green
2 sentences1983The decision of the Surpeme Court of the United States “have established a fixed dividing line between petty and serious offenses; those crimes carrying more than six months sentence are serious and those carrying less are petty crimes.” Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 512 , 94 S.Ct. 2687, 2691 , 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974)” Mayberry, at 89. 1983The decision of the Surpeme Court of the United States “have established a fixed dividing line between petty and serious offenses; those crimes carrying more than six months sentence are serious and those carrying less are petty crimes.” Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U.S. 506, 512 , 94 S.Ct. 2687, 2691 , 41 L.Ed.2d 912 (1974)” Mayberry, at 89. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Josal, Inc. v. Rolling Park Homes, Inc.
green
1 sentence1978In answering that question we are guided by several cases which appear apphcable even though they do not involve mechanic’s hen claims: Josal, Inc. v. Rolling Park Homes, Inc., 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 646 , 171 A. 2d 830 (1961), held that Rule 2252 authorized joinder of an additional defendant only if plaintiff could have sued additional defendant directly for the same injury for which he has sued original defendant. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Commonwealth v. Halteman green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Licari green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Ritter Finance Co. v. Myers green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Aguilar v. Texas red | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Cowperthwait v. Lamb green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| State v. Jackson green | 1 | 1973–1973 |
| Kite v. Jones green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Paustenbaugh v. Ward Baking Co. green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Commonwealth v. Neill green | 1 | 1960–1960 |
| Nikisher v. Benninger green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Sherman v. Manufacturers Light & Heat Co. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Karcesky v. Laria green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Carpenelli v. Scranton Bus Co. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Detre's Estate green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Lentz Estate green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Dempster's Estate green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Stirling's Estate green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
| Devereux Foundation, Inc., Zoning Case green | 1 | 1950–1950 |
| United States v. Patten green | 1 | 1934–1934 |
| Travis v. Brown green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
| Shannon v. Castner green | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.