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 2 courts 1998–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Vucichgreen1 sentence2020See Vucich, supra. In his third claim, Groff alleges that the trial court (1) improperly permitted the Commonwealth to make a material misstatement of Section 6312, and (2) exacerbated the error by giving an inadequate jury instruction regarding Section 6312. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Edmistonyellow1 sentence2014We reiterate the following principles guiding our consideration of an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. standard and scope of review is limited to support Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) [, cert. denied, Edminston v. Pennsylvania, 1345 S. Ct. 639 findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d by Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d Court applies a de novo standard of review to the Id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kinggreen2 sentences2013Our decision in Commonwealth v. King, 554 Pa. 331 , 721 A.2d 763, 777 (1998), is instructive on Appellant’s claim of an inadequate jury instruction on mitigation. 2013Our decision in Commonwealth v. King, 554 Pa. 331 , 721 A.2d 763, 777 (1998), is instructive on Appellant’s claim of an inadequate jury instruction on mitigation. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Fowlingreen2 sentences2005Compare Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414 , 710 A.2d 1130 (1998) (dismissing aggravated assault charges for gunshot injury to innocent bystander where the accused, who had simply been sitting at a bar, justifiably fired his gun multiple times at three attackers who had ambushed him, thrown him to the floor, stayed on top of him to continue the attack, maced him to near-blindness, and pointed a gun in his face). ¶ 19 Appellant also contends, however, that the court delivered an inadequate jury instruction on self-defense/justification. 2005Compare Commonwealth v. Fowlin, 551 Pa. 414 , 710 A.2d 1130 (1998) (dismissing aggravated assault charges for gunshot injury to innocent bystander where the accused, who had simply been sitting at a bar, justifiably fired his gun multiple times at three attackers who had ambushed him, thrown him to the floor, stayed on top of him to continue the attack, maced him to near-blindness, and pointed a gun in his face). ¶ 19 Appellant also contends, however, that the court delivered an inadequate jury instruction on self-defense/justification. | 1 | 1 |
Levey v. DeNardogreen2 sentences2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred “by faffing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule[.]” Specifically, she contends that the trial court’s recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction. 2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred “by faffing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule[.]” Specifically, she contends that the trial court’s recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. Listgreen2 sentences2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred "by failing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule [.]" Specifically, she contends that the trial court's recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction. 2004See Levey v. DeNardo, 555 Pa. 514 , 725 A.2d 733, 735-36 (1999) (citing Lockhart, 665 A.2d at 1180 ). ¶ 17 Mitchell next argues that the trial court erred “by faffing to properly instruct the jury on the assured clear distance ahead rule[.]” Specifically, she contends that the trial court’s recitation of the Pennsylvania statutory codification of the assured clear distance ahead rule provided an inadequate jury instruction. | 1 | 1 |
Santarlas v. Leaseway Motorcar Transport Co.green2 sentences1998Santarlas v. Leaseway Motorcar Transport Co., 456 Pa.Super. 34, 37-38 , 689 A.2d 311, 312 (1997). 1998Santarlas v. Leaseway Motorcar Transport Co., 456 Pa.Super. 34, 37-38 , 689 A.2d 311, 312 (1997). | 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. Koehler
green
1 sentence2014We reiterate the following principles guiding our consideration of an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. standard and scope of review is limited to support Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) [, cert. denied, Edminston v. Pennsylvania, 1345 S. Ct. 639 findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d by Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d Court applies a de novo standard of review to the Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Medina
green
1 sentence2014We reiterate the following principles guiding our consideration of an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. standard and scope of review is limited to support Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) [, cert. denied, Edminston v. Pennsylvania, 1345 S. Ct. 639 findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d by Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d Court applies a de novo standard of review to the Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commonwealth v. Spotz
green
1 sentence2014We reiterate the following principles guiding our consideration of an appeal from the denial of PCRA relief. standard and scope of review is limited to support Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 65 A.3d 339, 345 (Pa. 2013) (citation omitted) [, cert. denied, Edminston v. Pennsylvania, 1345 S. Ct. 639 findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth v. Koehler, 614 Pa. 159 , 36 A.3d by Commonwealth v. Spotz, 610 Pa. 17 , 18 A.3d Court applies a de novo standard of review to the Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.