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.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1996–2026 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. Cookgreen2 sentences1996Initially, we note that our standard for reviewing the propriety of statements made by the trial court in its jury charge “is limited to a determination of whether the court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 383 Pa.Super. 615 , 557 A.2d 421, 424 (1989) (quoting Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1136 (1988)). 1996Initially, we note that our standard for reviewing the propriety of statements made by the trial court in its jury charge “is limited to a determination of whether the court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 383 Pa.Super. 615 , 557 A.2d 421, 424 (1989) (quoting Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1136 (1988)). | 1 | 1 |
Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services Co.green2 sentences1996Initially, we note that our standard for reviewing the propriety of statements made by the trial court in its jury charge “is limited to a determination of whether the court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 383 Pa.Super. 615 , 557 A.2d 421, 424 (1989) (quoting Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1136 (1988)). 1996Initially, we note that our standard for reviewing the propriety of statements made by the trial court in its jury charge “is limited to a determination of whether the court committed a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 383 Pa.Super. 615 , 557 A.2d 421, 424 (1989) (quoting Cucchi v. Rollins Protective Services, 377 Pa.Super. 9 , 546 A.2d 1131, 1136 (1988)). | 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. Acosta
green
1 sentence2026Id. at 16 (punctuation modified) (citing Acosta, 815 A.2d at 1085 ). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
CEO v. Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County
green
2 sentences2018The coercive factors included: "(1) Trooper Hoy never told Valdivia he was free to leave ..., (2) Trooper Hoy ordered Valdivia to exit his car to receive the traffic warning ..., (3) there was more than one trooper at the scene of the stop ..., and (4) Trooper Hoy never verbally advised Valdivia that he was free to refuse consent[.]" Valdivia , 145 A.3d at 1166 . 2018The non-coercive factors found by the Superior Court included: "(1) Trooper Hoy gave back Valdivia's documentation, (2) there is no evidence of police abuses, aggressive tactics, coercive language, coercive tone of voice, physical contact, or the use of physical restraints at any time during the detention ..., and (3) Valdivia read and signed a consent form which advised that he did not have to consent." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Ival S. WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIRESTONE TIRE & RUBBER CO., Defendant-Appellee
green
1 sentence2007Wilson v. Firestone Tire Co., 932 F.2d 510 (6th Cir.1991) (“simple inquiry about retirement plans does not show animosity towards age, but a coercive inquiry does.”) Yet, in finding the discharge pretextual, it placed much weight on the statement Oldt made to Cressman, “Look, you’re 74, you ought to consider retiring.” First, this statement did not constitute evidence of discrimination because Cressman did not remember the statement at all. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Commonwealth v. MacK
green
2 sentences2003However, the presence of all of these factors, under the totality of the circumstances, lead us to conclude that Acosta’s consent was not “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice[,]” but was “the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne — under the totality of the circumstances.” See Mack, 568 Pa. at 334 , 796 A.2d at 970 . 2003However, the presence of all of these factors, under the totality of the circumstances, lead us to conclude that Acosta’s consent was not “the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice[,]” but was “the result of duress or coercion, express or implied, or a will overborne — under the totality of the circumstances.” See Mack, 568 Pa. at 334 , 796 A.2d at 970 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Watson
green
2 sentences2002While an arrest does not per se render consent involuntary, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424 , 96 S.Ct. 820, 828 , 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976), it nevertheless militates against a finding of consent, making the Commonwealth’s burden more difficult. 2002While an arrest does not per se render consent involuntary, see United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424 , 96 S.Ct. 820, 828 , 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976), it nevertheless militates against a finding of consent, making the Commonwealth’s burden more difficult. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.