6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1959–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Czuprynski v. Bay Circuit Judgegreen2 sentences2019Anthony McFall was one of the appellees represented by the Defender Association.” Id. (footnote ____________________________________________ 9 The Commonwealth’s citation of Czuprynski v. Bay Cir. J., 420 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. App. 1988), is particularly unhelpful, as the underlying facts of that case are not discussed in any detail in the court’s opinion, and because Michigan’s standard for review of the denial of a recusal motion require a showing of actual bias for reversal. 2019Anthony McFall was one of the appellees represented by the Defender Association.” Id. (footnote ____________________________________________ 9 The Commonwealth’s citation of Czuprynski v. Bay Cir. J., 420 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. App. 1988), is particularly unhelpful, as the underlying facts of that case are not discussed in any detail in the court’s opinion, and because Michigan’s standard for review of the denial of a recusal motion require a showing of actual bias for reversal. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Proctorgreen2 sentences2019I 6i2(a), does not permit the writing to be entered into evidence . lt 1!I l' I I :I It I ln Com. v. Proctor, 253 Pa. Super. 369, 3 .73, 385 A.2d 383, 385 (1978), the Pennsylvania :IiJ Superior Court adopted Michigan's rule laid out in Moncrief v. City of Detroit, 398 Mich. 18 I, II ... 24 7 N. W .2d 783 ( I 976), regarding proper foundation to permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness: I I- To permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness, the I proponent must show: (1) that the witness' present memory is inadequate; (2) that the II writ 2019I 6i2(a), does not permit the writing to be entered into evidence . lt 1!I l' I I :I It I ln Com. v. Proctor, 253 Pa. Super. 369, 3 .73, 385 A.2d 383, 385 (1978), the Pennsylvania :IiJ Superior Court adopted Michigan's rule laid out in Moncrief v. City of Detroit, 398 Mich. 18 I, II ... 24 7 N. W .2d 783 ( I 976), regarding proper foundation to permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness: I I- To permit the use of a writing in order to refresh the memory of a witness, the I proponent must show: (1) that the witness' present memory is inadequate; (2) that the II writ | 1 | 1 |
Moncrief v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2019(Footnote omitted). l Detroit, 398 Mich. 181 , 247 N.W.2d 783, 787-788 (1976)). 20 Defendant argues that use of the document was improper because the proper foundation was not laid. 2019(Footnote omitted). l Detroit, 398 Mich. 181 , 247 N.W.2d 783, 787-788 (1976)). 20 Defendant argues that use of the document was improper because the proper foundation was not laid. | 1 | 1 |
Halbert v. Michigangreen2 sentences2011See also Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 , 125 S.Ct. 2582 , 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005) (due process and equal protection clauses require appointment of counsel to Michigan defendants who plead guilty and are seeking first-tier review). 2011See also Halbert v. Michigan, 545 U.S. 605 , 125 S.Ct. 2582 , 162 L.Ed.2d 552 (2005) (due process and equal protection clauses require appointment of counsel to Michigan defendants who plead guilty and are seeking first-tier review). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Interest of McFall
green
2 sentences2019Anthony McFall was one of the appellees represented by the Defender Association.” Id. (footnote ____________________________________________ 9 The Commonwealth’s citation of Czuprynski v. Bay Cir. J., 420 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. App. 1988), is particularly unhelpful, as the underlying facts of that case are not discussed in any detail in the court’s opinion, and because Michigan’s standard for review of the denial of a recusal motion require a showing of actual bias for reversal. 2019Anthony McFall was one of the appellees represented by the Defender Association.” Id. (footnote ____________________________________________ 9 The Commonwealth’s citation of Czuprynski v. Bay Cir. J., 420 N.W.2d 141 (Mich. App. 1988), is particularly unhelpful, as the underlying facts of that case are not discussed in any detail in the court’s opinion, and because Michigan’s standard for review of the denial of a recusal motion require a showing of actual bias for reversal. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Robinson v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2013For more applicable non-binding persuasive authority, I would follow the Supreme Court of Michigan’s analysis of a police officer’s duty of care to passengers in Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439 , 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000). 2013For more applicable non-binding persuasive authority, I would follow the Supreme Court of Michigan’s analysis of a police officer’s duty of care to passengers in Robinson v. City of Detroit, 462 Mich. 439 , 613 N.W.2d 307 (2000). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Achilli v. United States
green
2 sentences1959Ed. 1013 , 76 S. Ct. 685 ; Achilli v. United States, 353 U. S. 373 , 1 L. 1959Ed. 1013 , 76 S. Ct. 685 ; Achilli v. United States, 353 U. S. 373 , 1 L. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Berra v. United States
green
2 sentences1959Haller of the Michigan bar, in an excellent article entitled “Evading Income Taxes: Moral Turpitude?”, Michigan State Bar Journal, March 1958, said: “All the federal cases agree that where an indictment is brought charging that 145(b) was violated by'the filing of a false and fraudulent return, it is an essential element of the government’s case, to obtain a conviction that fraud must be proved.” (Borra v. United States, 351 U. S. 131 , 100 L. 1959Haller of the Michigan bar, in an excellent article entitled “Evading Income Taxes: Moral Turpitude?”, Michigan State Bar Journal, March 1958, said: “All the federal cases agree that where an indictment is brought charging that 145(b) was violated by'the filing of a false and fraudulent return, it is an essential element of the government’s case, to obtain a conviction that fraud must be proved.” (Borra v. United States, 351 U. S. 131 , 100 L. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.