discretion afforded hearing (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

discretion afforded hearing in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1975–1999 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Commonwealth v. McGinnisgreen
pasuperct · 1996 · cited in 2 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997Jackson raises the following issues on appeal 1 : 1) The Juvenile Court erred in transferring this case to adult court because Jackson was amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile 2) Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge that Jackson had not had a line-up and any out-of-court identifications should be viewed with caution 3) The Court erred in precluding trial counsel from alluding during closing arguments to the lack of forensic evidence 4) The verdict was against the weight of the evidence Generally, “[bjefore an appellate court will set asid

1997Jackson raises the following issues on appeal 1 : 1) The Juvenile Court erred in transferring this case to adult court because Jackson was amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile 2) Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge that Jackson had not had a line-up and any out-of-court identifications should be viewed with caution 3) The Court erred in precluding trial counsel from alluding during closing arguments to the lack of forensic evidence 4) The verdict was against the weight of the evidence Generally, “[bjefore an appellate court will set asid

22
Commonwealth v. Broomegreen
pa · 1983 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997This court also follows the rule that in order to properly certify a juvenile as an adult the “ ‘statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that ... the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.’ ” Commonwealth v. Broome, 317 Pa.Super. 1, 3 , 463 A.2d 1053, 1053 (1983) (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).

1997This court also follows the rule that in order to properly certify a juvenile as an adult the “ ‘statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that ... the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.’ ” Commonwealth v. Broome, 317 Pa.Super. 1, 3 , 463 A.2d 1053, 1053 (1983) (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).

11
Commonwealth v. Greinergreen
pasuperct · 1975 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 1977–1977
2 sentences

1977Commonwealth v. Greiner, 236 Pa.Super. 289, 297 , 344 A.2d 915, 919 (1975) citing Commonwealth v. Pouls, 198 Pa.Super. 595 , 182 A.2d 261 (1962).

1977Commonwealth v. Greiner, 236 Pa.Super. 289, 297 , 344 A.2d 915, 919 (1975) citing Commonwealth v. Pouls, 198 Pa.Super. 595 , 182 A.2d 261 (1962).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Bey green
pasuperct · 1977
2 sentences

1997Jackson raises the following issues on appeal 1 : 1) The Juvenile Court erred in transferring this case to adult court because Jackson was amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile 2) Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge that Jackson had not had a line-up and any out-of-court identifications should be viewed with caution 3) The Court erred in precluding trial counsel from alluding during closing arguments to the lack of forensic evidence 4) The verdict was against the weight of the evidence Generally, “[bjefore an appellate court will set asid

1997Jackson raises the following issues on appeal 1 : 1) The Juvenile Court erred in transferring this case to adult court because Jackson was amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile 2) Trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a jury charge that Jackson had not had a line-up and any out-of-court identifications should be viewed with caution 3) The Court erred in precluding trial counsel from alluding during closing arguments to the lack of forensic evidence 4) The verdict was against the weight of the evidence Generally, “[bjefore an appellate court will set asid

21996–1997
Commonwealth v. Pouls green
pasuperct · 1962
2 sentences

1977Commonwealth v. Greiner, 236 Pa.Super. 289, 297 , 344 A.2d 915, 919 (1975) citing Commonwealth v. Pouls, 198 Pa.Super. 595 , 182 A.2d 261 (1962).

1977Commonwealth v. Greiner, 236 Pa.Super. 289, 297 , 344 A.2d 915, 919 (1975) citing Commonwealth v. Pouls, 198 Pa.Super. 595 , 182 A.2d 261 (1962).

21975–1977
Commonwealth v. Lee green
pasuperct · 1997
1 sentence

1999Commonwealth v. Lee, 703 A.2d 470 (Pa.Super.1997). *1012 ¶4 The burden falls on the Commonwealth to establish that statutory prerequisites for the transfer of a juvenile to adult criminal court have been met.

11999–1999
Kent v. United States green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1997This court also follows the rule that in order to properly certify a juvenile as an adult the “ ‘statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that ... the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.’ ” Commonwealth v. Broome, 317 Pa.Super. 1, 3 , 463 A.2d 1053, 1053 (1983) (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).

1997This court also follows the rule that in order to properly certify a juvenile as an adult the “ ‘statement should be sufficient to demonstrate that ... the question [of certification] has received the careful consideration of the Juvenile Court; and it must set forth the basis for the order with sufficient specificity to permit meaningful review.’ ” Commonwealth v. Broome, 317 Pa.Super. 1, 3 , 463 A.2d 1053, 1053 (1983) (quoting Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1057 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966).

11997–1997

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check