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 1989–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hill v. Hillgreen1 sentence2019M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d on other 2013) (quoting Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Pa.Super. 1993) (disapproved 2018)). grounds in P.J,P, v, M.M., 185 A.3d 413 , 419 n.3 (Pa.Super. 1 Prior case law1 set forth a four factor analysis regarding shared legal custody. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. D'Amatogreen2 sentences2016To establish such a claim, a petitioner must prove that “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 579 Pa. 490 , 856 A.2d 806, 823 (2004). *615 A comparison of this four factor test to the two factor section 9545(b)(l)(ii) timeliness exception test reveals a superficial resemblance, as both involve consideration of whether the facts o 2016To establish such a claim, a petitioner must prove that “(1) the evidence has been discovered after trial and it could not have been obtained at or prior to trial through reasonable diligence; (2) the evidence is not cumulative; (3) it is not being used solely to impeach credibility; and (4) it would likely compel a different verdict.” Commonwealth v. D’Amato, 579 Pa. 490 , 856 A.2d 806, 823 (2004). *615 A comparison of this four factor test to the two factor section 9545(b)(l)(ii) timeliness exception test reveals a superficial resemblance, as both involve consideration of whether the facts o | 1 | 1 |
Skarvelis v. Zoning Hearing Boardgreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Skarvelis v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Borough of Dormont, 679 A.2d 278 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (for a variance by estoppel, an owner must establish each element of a four factor test by clear and concise evidence; the first factor is a long period of municipal failure to enforce the law when the municipality knew or should have known of the violation). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James R. Goff, Benjamin Phillip Barrington, Romulo Lon Kuntze, Terry B. Drewes, and Horst Schoenhoffgreen1 sentence1989Compare United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149, 166 (5th Cir 1988) (applying the five factor Marable test) 3 and United States v. Liotard, supra, 817 F.2d at 1078 (announcing a similar four factor test and criticizing particular aspects of the Marable test). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Liotard, Russellgreen1 sentence1989Compare United States v. Goff, 847 F.2d 149, 166 (5th Cir 1988) (applying the five factor Marable test) 3 and United States v. Liotard, supra, 817 F.2d at 1078 (announcing a similar four factor test and criticizing particular aspects of the Marable test). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Wingo
green
2 sentences2023At a hearing on the speedy trial motion, Appellant’s counsel presented the speedy trial claim on federal constitutional grounds, addressing the four- factor test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (endorsing a balancing test to determine whether a defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution has been violated). 2018Barker, 407 U.S. at 530 . | 2 | 2018–2023 |
P.J.P. v. M.M.
green
1 sentence2019M.P. v. M.P., 54 A.3d on other 2013) (quoting Hill v. Hill, 619 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Pa.Super. 1993) (disapproved 2018)). grounds in P.J,P, v, M.M., 185 A.3d 413 , 419 n.3 (Pa.Super. 1 Prior case law1 set forth a four factor analysis regarding shared legal custody. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Wiseman v. Wall
green
1 sentence2019However, the enactment of Section 5328(a) rendered the Wiseman v, Wall, 718 A.2d 844 (Pa.Super. 1998) analysis obsolete. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.