door inquiry (Pennsylvania) · Go Syfert
← Pennsylvania issues

door inquiry in Pennsylvania

6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1937–2015 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Co.green
pasuperct · 2005 · cited in 1 Pennsylvania opinions naming this issue, 2006–2006
1 sentence

2006Id. at 988. 5 .

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 (6)

CaseCitedYears
Commonwealth v. Dillon green
pa · 2007
1 sentence

2015The defense should have been permitted to inquire about this matter especially after the court opened the door to this inquiry. -7- J-A01031-15 Id.

12015–2015
Commonwealth v. Hammond green
pasuperct · 1982
2 sentences

1986The trial court disagreed and permitted this line of cross-examination. 3 *157 As a general statement, “[t]he cross-examination of a character witness for the defense regarding the defendant’s prior criminal record is not an abuse or [sic] discretion as the defense opens the door to such an inquiry by placing his reputation at issue in calling such witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Hammond, 308 Pa.Super. at 149 , 454 A.2d at 65 .

1986The trial court disagreed and permitted this line of cross-examination. 3 *157 As a general statement, “[t]he cross-examination of a character witness for the defense regarding the defendant’s prior criminal record is not an abuse or [sic] discretion as the defense opens the door to such an inquiry by placing his reputation at issue in calling such witnesses.” Commonwealth v. Hammond, 308 Pa.Super. at 149 , 454 A.2d at 65 .

11986–1986
Commonwealth v. Hodge green
pasuperct · 1979
2 sentences

1982Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 262 Pa.Su *150 per. 96, 396 A.2d 662 (1978) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance) 7 ; Commonwealth v. Hodge, 270 Pa.Super. 232 , 411 A.2d 503 (1979).

1982Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 262 Pa.Su *150 per. 96, 396 A.2d 662 (1978) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance) 7 ; Commonwealth v. Hodge, 270 Pa.Super. 232 , 411 A.2d 503 (1979).

11982–1982
Commonwealth v. Mayfield green
pasuperct · 1978
1 sentence

1982Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 262 Pa.Su *150 per. 96, 396 A.2d 662 (1978) (Opinion in Support of Affirmance) 7 ; Commonwealth v. Hodge, 270 Pa.Super. 232 , 411 A.2d 503 (1979).

11982–1982
State v. . Minton green
nc · 1948
2 sentences

1970In State v. Minton, 228 N. C. 518 , 46 S. E. 2d 296 (1948), fingerprints were found on a broken window of a door of a bar and grill following a burglary.

1970In State v. Minton, 228 N. C. 518 , 46 S. E. 2d 296 (1948), fingerprints were found on a broken window of a door of a bar and grill following a burglary.

11970–1970
Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co. green
pa · 1908
2 sentences

1937This court held in Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 221 Pa. 626 , 70 A. 884 : “The right [of cross-examination] is not to be denied or abridged because incidentally facts may be developed that are irrelevant to the issue and prejudicial to the other party.” In that case it was said further, in substance, that when one party “opened the door for this inquiry and as long as it was conducted in good faith for a legitimate purpose,” the other party “was within his rights” in proceeding with proper cross-examination.

1937This court held in Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co., 221 Pa. 626 , 70 A. 884 : “The right [of cross-examination] is not to be denied or abridged because incidentally facts may be developed that are irrelevant to the issue and prejudicial to the other party.” In that case it was said further, in substance, that when one party “opened the door for this inquiry and as long as it was conducted in good faith for a legitimate purpose,” the other party “was within his rights” in proceeding with proper cross-examination.

11937–1937

Where else courts name it

NY 25 (1903–2024) NJ 24 (1953–2026) IL 13 (1930–2025) CA 12 (1920–2021) TX 12 (1945–2021) MD 11 (1946–2021) FL 11 (1990–2025) MI 10 (1912–2021) OH 10 (2005–2025) VA 10 (1990–2024) CT 10 (1977–2017) MS 8 (1978–2016) TN 7 (1944–2026) IN 7 (1970–2011) UT 7 (1983–2017) NC 7 (1989–2026) GA 6 (1979–2014) MT 6 (1984–2017) OK 6 (1926–2007) MO 6 (1900–2025) WA 6 (1914–2016) PA 6 (1937–2015) MA 5 (1940–2015) HI 5 (2019–2021) SD 4 (2002–2017) LA 4 (1939–2015) AZ 4 (1978–2023) WI 4 (1920–2018) CO 4 (1972–2010) ND 3 (2015–2024) IA 3 (1921–2023) AL 3 (1962–2008) WY 3 (1997–1999) MN 3 (1984–2003) KS 3 (1966–2018) DC 3 (1997–2019) OR 2 (1902–2017) AR 2 (1925–1960) NE 2 (1910–2016) NM 2 (1997–2009) WV 2 (1996–2017)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check