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.
49 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2026 18 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. Californiagreen2 sentences2025NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.M., FATHER : : : : : No. 3150 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Decree Entered October 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): 13- 2024-OA BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 19, 2025 S.M. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor child, C.M. (“Chil 2023The Anders2 brief raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing in light of mitigating factors.3 For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment of sentence and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 3126(a)(1), 2903(a), respectively. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). 3 The Commonwealth has filed a letter, stating it would not file a brief. | 3 | 42 |
Commonwealth v. Santiagogreen2 sentences2025NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37 IN THE INTEREST OF: C.M., A : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MINOR : PENNSYLVANIA : : APPEAL OF: S.M., FATHER : : : : : No. 3150 EDA 2024 Appeal from the Decree Entered October 28, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County Civil Division at No(s): 13- 2024-OA BEFORE: LAZARUS, P.J., BECK, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.* MEMORANDUM BY STEVENS, P.J.E.: FILED MARCH 19, 2025 S.M. (“Father”) appeals from the decree entered in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, which involuntarily terminated his parental rights to his minor child, C.M. (“Chil 2023The Anders2 brief raises a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing in light of mitigating factors.3 For the reasons below, we affirm the judgment of sentence and grant Counsel’s petition to withdraw. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 901(a), 3126(a)(1), 2903(a), respectively. 2 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). 3 The Commonwealth has filed a letter, stating it would not file a brief. | 2 | 18 |
In re V.E.green1 sentence2014See In the Interest of J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that, “[b]ecause the Anders procedure has been engrafted onto parental termination cases by In re V.E. and J.E., [ ], 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. ____________________________________________ 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). -5- J-S34015-14 Super. 1992), counsel’s decision to follow the [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(c)(4) procedure in this parental termination case was proper”).3 On March 19, 2014, Mother’s counsel filed the Anders brief. | 1 | 1 |
In the Interest of J.T.green1 sentence2014See In the Interest of J.T., 983 A.2d 771, 772 (Pa. Super. 2009) (holding that, “[b]ecause the Anders procedure has been engrafted onto parental termination cases by In re V.E. and J.E., [ ], 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (Pa. ____________________________________________ 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). -5- J-S34015-14 Super. 1992), counsel’s decision to follow the [Pa.R.A.P.] 1925(c)(4) procedure in this parental termination case was proper”).3 On March 19, 2014, Mother’s counsel filed the Anders brief. | 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
2 sentences2024We affirm the judgment of sentence and grant the petition to withdraw. ____________________________________________ 1 18 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3301(a)(1)(i), 3301(c)(2), 2705, 3307(a)(3), 3304(a)(1), 3301(d.1), respectively. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); see also Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981). 2022Upon review, we grant Attorney Rice’s application to withdraw, and we affirm Calp’s judgment of sentence. ____________________________________________ 1 35 P.S. § 780-118(a)(12). 2 Anders v. California, 368 U.S. 738 (1967); Commonwealth v. McClendon, 434 A.2d 1185 (Pa. 1981); Commonwealth v. Santiago, 978 A.2d 349 (Pa. 2009). | 5 | 2014–2024 |
Commonwealth v. Turner
green
2 sentences2022This brief, however, did not ____________________________________________ 118 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.1, 3125, 3123(B), 3126(A)7), 6301(a)(1)(ii), 3121(c), 3127(A), and 6318(a)(1), respectively. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). -2- satisfy the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988). 2017Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. 2 Anders v. State of California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 3 Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988). 2 own behalf. | 2 | 2017–2022 |
Com. v. Seals, J.
green
1 sentence2026Following this Court’s recent decision in Commonwealth v. Seals, ___ A.3d ___, 2026 PA Super 29 , 2025 WL 4234323 (Pa.Super. filed Feb. 17, 2026) (en banc), and because Cataldo’s sentence exceeded the 30-day maximum sentence authorized by 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9771(c)(2)(ii) for a second technical violation, ____________________________________________ 1 A “technical violation” is “[a] violation of the specific terms and conditions of a defendant’s probation, other than by the commission of a new crime of which the defendant is convicted or found guilty by a judge or jury or to which the defendant pl | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Com. v. Weitzel, E.
green
2 sentences20232023 PA Super 226 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EZRA WEITZEL : : Appellant : No. 555 MDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003617-2021 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.* OPINION BY COLINS, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 6, 2023 Appellant, Ezra Weitzel, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 7 years and 4 months to 17 years’ incarceration imposed on him after he was convicted by a jury of strangulation, simple a 20232023 PA Super 226 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : EZRA WEITZEL : : Appellant : No. 555 MDA 2023 Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 1, 2023 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-06-CR-0003617-2021 BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and COLINS, J.* OPINION BY COLINS, J.: FILED: NOVEMBER 6, 2023 Appellant, Ezra Weitzel, appeals from the aggregate judgment of sentence of 7 years and 4 months to 17 years’ incarceration imposed on him after he was convicted by a jury of strangulation, simple a | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Commonwealth v. Finley
green
1 sentence2022This brief, however, did not ____________________________________________ 118 Pa.C.S. §§ 3122.1, 3125, 3123(B), 3126(A)7), 6301(a)(1)(ii), 3121(c), 3127(A), and 6318(a)(1), respectively. 2 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). -2- satisfy the requirements set forth in Commonwealth v. Turner, 544 A.2d 927 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Com. v. Wimberly
neutral
1 sentence2019After review, we grant counsel’s petition to withdraw and affirm the judgment of sentence. * Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court. 1 As we noted in our prior memorandum, Commonwealth v. Wimberly, 193 A.3d 1061 , 3711 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. filed June 8, 2018) (unpublished memorandum), Appellant purported to appeal from an order entered on November 1, 2017. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
1 sentence2017After careful review, we affirm that Appellant is not eligible to have his sentence determined pursuant to the Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (“RRRI”) ____________________________________________ 1 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (discussing revocation hearings). “[W]hen a parolee or probationer is detained pending a revocation hearing, due process requires a determination at a pre-revocation hearing, a Gagnon I hearing, that probable cause exists to believe that a violation has been committed. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.