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 1974–1997 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Interest of J.J.green2 sentences1997In Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. 274 , 656 A.2d 1355 (1995) (Zappala, J., plurality opinion). 2 In Interest of J.J., 447 Pa.Super. 259 , 668 A.2d 1176, 1179 (1995), a panel of this Court enunciated the following factors which are to be used in determining whether an appellant should be sanctioned for his flight: (1) the stage of the proceedings when the flight occurred, i.e., during the trial, post-trial or on appeal; (2) the manner in which the defendant escaped; (3) whether the defendant has been returned to custody; (4) the circumstances surrounding the defendant's return to custody, i.e., was 1997In Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. 274 , 656 A.2d 1355 (1995) (Zappala, J., plurality opinion). 2 In Interest of J.J., 447 Pa.Super. 259 , 668 A.2d 1176, 1179 (1995), a panel of this Court enunciated the following factors which are to be used in determining whether an appellant should be sanctioned for his flight: (1) the stage of the proceedings when the flight occurred, i.e., during the trial, post-trial or on appeal; (2) the manner in which the defendant escaped; (3) whether the defendant has been returned to custody; (4) the circumstances surrounding the defendant's return to custody, i.e., was | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Minorgreen2 sentences1995See Minor, supra, at 436 Pa.Super. 35 , 647 A.2d 299 (applying Heckman , court held that appellant was precluded from presenting the defense that he lacked notice of suspension where he had not provided PennDOT with his current address). 5 Most recently, this rule was validated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zimmick, supra, 539 Pa. 556 , 653 A.2d 221 . 1995See Minor, supra, at 436 Pa.Super. 35 , 647 A.2d 299 (applying Heckman , court held that appellant was precluded from presenting the defense that he lacked notice of suspension where he had not provided PennDOT *47 with his current address). [5] Most recently, this rule was validated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zimmick, supra, 539 Pa. 556 , 653 A.2d 221 . | 1 | 1 |
McQuaide v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.green2 sentences1995See Minor, supra, at 436 Pa.Super. 35 , 647 A.2d 299 (applying Heckman , court held that appellant was precluded from presenting the defense that he lacked notice of suspension where he had not provided PennDOT with his current address). 5 Most recently, this rule was validated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zimmick, supra, 539 Pa. 556 , 653 A.2d 221 . 1995See Minor, supra, at 436 Pa.Super. 35 , 647 A.2d 299 (applying Heckman , court held that appellant was precluded from presenting the defense that he lacked notice of suspension where he had not provided PennDOT *47 with his current address). [5] Most recently, this rule was validated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Zimmick, supra, 539 Pa. 556 , 653 A.2d 221 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bigelowgreen2 sentences1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t 1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t | 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. Neal
green
2 sentences1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t 1989In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred to elements of charged crimes, this court enunciated the following test: When a statute defining an offense contains an exception, in the enacting clause, which is so incorporated with the language defining the offense that the ingredients of the offense cannot be accurately and clearly described if the excep | 2 | 1974–1989 |
Commonwealth v. Stoffan
green
2 sentences1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t 1989Neither in criminal nor in civil pleading is it required to anticipate or negative a defense. . . . `In general,' says Chitty, `all matters of defense must come from the defendant, and need not be anticipated or stated by prosecutor.' Id. 484 Pa. at 483 , 399 A.2d at 395 (citations and quotes omitted). *174 In Commonwealth v. Stoffan, 228 Pa.Super. 127 , 323 A.2d 318 (1974), our court found Commonwealth v. Neal, 78 Pa.Super. 216 (1922) useful in interpreting certain exemption clauses in the Controlled Substance, Drug and Cosmetic Act, supra. In deciding whether the exemption clauses referred t | 2 | 1985–1989 |
In the Interest of J.J.
green
2 sentences1997In Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. 274 , 656 A.2d 1355 (1995) (Zappala, J., plurality opinion). 2 In Interest of J.J., 447 Pa.Super. 259 , 668 A.2d 1176, 1179 (1995), a panel of this Court enunciated the following factors which are to be used in determining whether an appellant should be sanctioned for his flight: (1) the stage of the proceedings when the flight occurred, i.e., during the trial, post-trial or on appeal; (2) the manner in which the defendant escaped; (3) whether the defendant has been returned to custody; (4) the circumstances surrounding the defendant's return to custody, i.e., was 1997In Interest of J.J., 540 Pa. 274 , 656 A.2d 1355 (1995) (Zappala, J., plurality opinion). 2 In Interest of J.J., 447 Pa.Super. 259 , 668 A.2d 1176, 1179 (1995), a panel of this Court enunciated the following factors which are to be used in determining whether an appellant should be sanctioned for his flight: (1) the stage of the proceedings when the flight occurred, i.e., during the trial, post-trial or on appeal; (2) the manner in which the defendant escaped; (3) whether the defendant has been returned to custody; (4) the circumstances surrounding the defendant's return to custody, i.e., was | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Commonwealth v. Heckman
green
2 sentences1995Specifically, the question has arisen as to whether one who does not notify PennDOT of his or her change of address is precluded from asserting that the Commonwealth did not provide them with actual notice. [4] In Commonwealth v. Heckman, supra, 404 Pa.Super. 335 , 590 A.2d 1261 , a panel of this court enunciated the following rule: "[W]e today hold that when a defendant fails to notify PennDOT of a change in address pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1515, the defendant cannot rely on this violation of the law to insulate him from more serious violations by claiming lack of actual notice." Heckman, 4 1995Specifically, the question has arisen as to whether one who does not notify PennDOT of his or her change of address is precluded from asserting that the Commonwealth did not provide them with actual notice. [4] In Commonwealth v. Heckman, supra, 404 Pa.Super. 335 , 590 A.2d 1261 , a panel of this court enunciated the following rule: "[W]e today hold that when a defendant fails to notify PennDOT of a change in address pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. § 1515, the defendant cannot rely on this violation of the law to insulate him from more serious violations by claiming lack of actual notice." Heckman, 4 | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. Liquor License Case
green
2 sentences1975The much referred to case we are to be guided by in determining necessity is Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. Liquor License Case, 409 Pa. 370 , 187 A. 2d 154 (1962), where the court enunciated the following principle of law, viz.: “There is no doubt that to warrant the granting of an additional license in a ‘resort area,’ it must be clear that there is an actual need, and that the license holders already in business are not adequately equipped to supply the need of those frequenting the area. 1975The much referred to case we are to be guided by in determining necessity is Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. Liquor License Case, 409 Pa. 370 , 187 A. 2d 154 (1962), where the court enunciated the following principle of law, viz.: “There is no doubt that to warrant the granting of an additional license in a ‘resort area,’ it must be clear that there is an actual need, and that the license holders already in business are not adequately equipped to supply the need of those frequenting the area. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Willowbrook Country Club, Inc. Liquor License Case
green
2 sentences1975However, we agree with the conclusion reached in this case by the Superior Court, supra, [ 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 242 (1962)], as stated at page 246: ‘[That] the requirement of necessity in a resort area must be considered in the light of the circumstances under which the applicant operates. 1975However, we agree with the conclusion reached in this case by the Superior Court, supra, [ 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 242 (1962)], as stated at page 246: ‘[That] the requirement of necessity in a resort area must be considered in the light of the circumstances under which the applicant operates. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.