6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Cullen-Doyle, S., Aplt.green2 sentences2017Id.; see also note 3, supra. Because those discrete factors did not include burglary, the Court found apt the principle of statutory interpretation that the “inclusion of specific matters . . . implies the exclusion of other matters.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1243 (citation omitted). 2017Because those discrete factors did not include burglary, the Court found apt the principle of statutory interpretation that the “‘inclusion of specific matters . . . implies the exclusion of other matters.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1243 (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Browngreen1 sentence2020J-S64025-19 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA Appellant : : : v. : : : CARMAN DELTON HYDOCK : No. 566 WDA 2019 Appeal from the Order Entered March 20, 2019 In the Court of Common Pleas of Westmoreland County Criminal Division at No(s): CP-65-CR-0002216-2017 BEFORE: BOWES, J., LAZARUS, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.* CONCURRING MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED JANUARY 17, 2020 I respectfully concur in the learned Majority’s apt analysis, which I believe correctly reverses the trial court’s dismissal of the ch | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Moyegreen1 sentence2018Commonwealth v. Moye, 836 A.2d 973, 976 (Pa. Super. 2003) In determining that this issue lacks merit, the PCRA court offered the following apt analysis, which we adopt as our own: [Appellant’s] bald assertion that the witness seeing him at the preliminary hearing was the only reason [the witness] identified [Appellant] at trial is insufficient to warrant relief on grounds of ineffectiveness. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Finnecygreen1 sentence2017Id.; see also note 3, supra. Because those discrete factors did not include burglary, the Court found apt the principle of statutory interpretation that the “inclusion of specific matters . . . implies the exclusion of other matters.” Cullen-Doyle, 164 A.3d at 1243 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Hogangreen1 sentence2016The - 12 - J-S31010-16 trial court addressed Appellant’s argument with the following apt analysis, which we adopt as our own: [T]he Commonwealth may prove recklessness by circumstantial evidence; however, “the pieces of evidence must fit together so tightly as to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” See Com. v. Hogan, 468 A.2d 493, 496 (Pa. Super. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vescio v. Rubolino
green
1 sentence2020However, I write separately to explicitly distinguish the Supreme Court’s holding in Vescio v. Rubolino, 249 A.2d 914 (Pa. 1969), which both the trial court and Appellee relied upon, and which the parties briefed extensively. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Doman v. Atlas America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020I find no substantive fault in the learned Majority’s apt analysis of the applicability of Section 302(a)(1) of the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act (“WCA”), and discussion of Doman v. Atlas America, Inc., 150 A.3d 103 (Pa.Super. 2016). | 1 | 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.