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 4 courts 1967–2026 2 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. Barlowgreen1 sentence2026See id. | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. Prizzia, S.green1 sentence2023See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Prizzia, 260 A.3d 263 , 267 (Pa. Super. 2021). - 11 - J-S39040-22 safe driving. | 1 | 1 |
Terry v. Ohiogreen2 sentences2008NOTES [1] While a permissible stop could have been based on the officer's observation of the violation of these two sections, our review is limited to the unconstitutionality of the statute. [2] See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [3] See U.S. Const. amend. 2008NOTES [1] While a permissible stop could have been based on the officer's observation of the violation of these two sections, our review is limited to the unconstitutionality of the statute. [2] See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). [3] See U.S. Const. amend. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Arvizu
green
2 sentences2008IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."). [4] The United States Supreme Court recently stated, "The Fourth Amendment prohibits `unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." 2008IV ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."). [4] The United States Supreme Court recently stated, "The Fourth Amendment prohibits `unreasonable searches and seizures' by the Government, and its protections extend to brief investigatory stops of persons or vehicles that fall short of traditional arrest." | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Bloom v. DuBois Regional Medical Center
green
1 sentence1995There, a panel of this court concluded that in a motor vehicle accident case Sinn did not require actual visual observation of the impact, but rather included cases where the relative visually observed events leading to the injury and then heard the actual impact causing the injury. ” Bloom, 409 Pa. Super, at 103 n.10, 597 A.2d at 681 n.10. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Neff v. Lasso
green
2 sentences1991In the thorough opinion authored by Judge Kelly in Neff v. Lasso, 382 Pa.Super. 487 , 555 A.2d 1304 (1989), allocatur denied, 523 Pa. 636 , 637, 565 A.2d 445 (1989), a similar attempt at refining the observation requirement was made. 1991In the thorough opinion authored by Judge Kelly in Neff v. Lasso, 382 Pa.Super. 487 , 555 A.2d 1304 (1989), allocatur denied, 523 Pa. 636 , 637, 565 A.2d 445 (1989), a similar attempt at refining the observation requirement was made. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Manns Liquor License Case
green
1 sentence1967The court must also admit that this is an unusual way to hear a matter de novo; also, as stated in Manns Liquor License Case, 207 Pa. Superior Ct. 340 (1965), at page 342: ‘The law is well settled that hearings de novo, so designated by the legislature, are, so far as the Liquor Code is concerned, in fact, not de novo and unless new facts can be found by the court . . . ’ ” Laying aside for the moment the commonly accepted practice of quarter sessions courts in this State, we direct our attention to the observation that the hearing before us in this case is not de novo. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Club Oasis, Inc. Liquor License Case
green
1 sentence1967The court in Manns Case cites as authority the case of Club Oasis, Inc. Liquor License Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 439 , and the authorities noted therein in footnote 3 on page 445. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.