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.
48 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2026 14 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2026Smith, 574 A.2d 558 (stating that “[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment”) (citations omitted). 2026Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that ‘[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment.’” Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. 1990)). | 42 | 45 |
Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2026Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that ‘[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment.’” Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. 1990)). 2025Moreover, “[o]ur Supreme Court has held that ‘[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment.’” Fisher v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 62 A.3d 1073, 1077 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (quoting Smith v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. 1990)). | 7 | 7 |
Davis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2016See Smith, 574 A.2d at 560 (“As long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment.”) (citations omitted); Davis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 841 A.2d 148, 151-52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (“This court will not interfere with the Board’s discretion where the parole violations are supported by substantial evidence and the amount of backtime imposed for each offense is within the applicable presumptive range.”) (citation and footnote omitted); Wright v. 2015Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560 (Pa. 1990) (“[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment”); Davis v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 841 A.2d 148, 151-52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). | 2 | 2 |
R.Barnes v. PBPPgreen1 sentence2019The presumptive ranges for recommitment for CPVs . . . are found in [S]ection 75.2 of the Board’s [R]egulations[.] Barnes v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 203 A.3d 382, 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parolegreen1 sentence2016See Smith, 574 A.2d at 560 (“As long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range for the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment.”) (citations omitted); Davis v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 841 A.2d 148, 151-52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (“This court will not interfere with the Board’s discretion where the parole violations are supported by substantial evidence and the amount of backtime imposed for each offense is within the applicable presumptive range.”) (citation and footnote omitted); Wright v. | 1 | 1 |
Burgess v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1996Watkins argues, therefore, that his backtime should have been reduced from 18 months to 12 months. 5 The review of a petition for administrative relief was explained in Burgess v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 282 , 568 A.2d 268, 269-70 (1989), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 613 , 577 A.2d 545 (1990): [T]he two member or three member revocation panel is the ultimate fact finder in revocation proceedings. 61 P.S. § 331.4(b). 1996Watkins argues, therefore, that his backtime should have been reduced from 18 months to 12 months. 5 The review of a petition for administrative relief was explained in Burgess v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 282 , 568 A.2d 268, 269-70 (1989), petition for allowance of appeal denied, 525 Pa. 613 , 577 A.2d 545 (1990): [T]he two member or three member revocation panel is the ultimate fact finder in revocation proceedings. 61 P.S. § 331.4(b). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Congo v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
green
2 sentences2019Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560-61 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (explaining that “[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range of the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment”) (citing Congo v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 522 A.2d 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)). 2019Smith v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 574 A.2d 558, 560-61 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (explaining that “[a]s long as the period of recommitment is within the presumptive range of the violation, the Commonwealth Court will not entertain challenges to the propriety of the term of recommitment”) (citing Congo v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 522 A.2d 676 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987)). | 3 | 1990–2019 |
Miskovitch v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2015Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704; Miskovitch v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 77 A.3d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013), appeal denied, 87 A.3d 322 (Pa. 2014). 6 560 (Pa. 1990). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex
green
2 sentences1998But the conviction, with all its procedural safeguards, has extinguished that liberty right_” Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). 5 .The presumptive range for a violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act is eighteen to twenty-four months, whereas the presumptive range for a possession of instruments of crime conviction is only six to twelve months. 6 . 1998But the conviction, with all its procedural safeguards, has extinguished that liberty right_” Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2104 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). 5 .The presumptive range for a violation of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act is eighteen to twenty-four months, whereas the presumptive range for a possession of instruments of crime conviction is only six to twelve months. 6 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Wagner v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
2 sentences1990Congo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa.Commw. 511, 522 A.2d 676 (1987); Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Commw. 132, 498 A.2d 1007 (1985); Chapman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Commw. 49, 484 A.2d 413 (1984). 1990Congo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa.Commw. 511, 522 A.2d 676 (1987); Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Commw. 132, 498 A.2d 1007 (1985); Chapman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Commw. 49, 484 A.2d 413 (1984). *505 As reflected in section 75.3(b), the presumptive ranges of parole backtime set forth in the Code "are intended to structure the discretion of the Board while allowing for individual circumstances in terms of mitigation and aggravation to be considered in the . . . decision." As long as the recommittal is within th | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Chapman v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1990Congo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa.Commw. 511, 522 A.2d 676 (1987); Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Commw. 132, 498 A.2d 1007 (1985); Chapman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Commw. 49, 484 A.2d 413 (1984). 1990Congo v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 104 Pa.Commw. 511, 522 A.2d 676 (1987); Wagner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 92 Pa.Commw. 132, 498 A.2d 1007 (1985); Chapman v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 86 Pa.Commw. 49, 484 A.2d 413 (1984). *505 As reflected in section 75.3(b), the presumptive ranges of parole backtime set forth in the Code "are intended to structure the discretion of the Board while allowing for individual circumstances in terms of mitigation and aggravation to be considered in the . . . decision." As long as the recommittal is within th | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.