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 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Laichgreen2 sentences2019This ruling was proper as it is well-settled that statements made by a defendant are an exception to the hearsay rule. “[A] defendant’s out-of-court statements fall within the party admission exception to the hearsay rule.” Commonwealth v. Laich, 777 A.2d 1057, 1060 (Pa. 2001). 2005See Pa. R.E. 803(25); see also Commonwealth v. Laich, 566 Pa. 19, 26 , 777 A.2d 1057, 1061 (2001) (stating that a defendant’s out-of-court statements fall within the party admission exception to the hearsay rule). | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen2 sentences2001Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246, 257 (1988). 2001Commonwealth v. Smith, 518 Pa. 15 , 540 A.2d 246, 257 (1988). | 1 | 1 |
Vojas v. K Mart Corp.green2 sentences2000See Vojas v. K mart Corp., 312 Ill.App.3d 544 , 245 Ill.Dec. 144 , 727 N.E.2d 397 (2000) (holding the principal’s grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule; instead, the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment); Lane v. City of Kotzebue, 982 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Alaska 1999) (stating “An employee’s statements, to be admissible as nonhearsay admissions of party-opponent, do not have to be authorized by the employer; it is enough that they concern the employees’ duties.”). 2000See Vojas v. K mart Corp., 312 Ill.App.3d 544 , 245 Ill.Dec. 144 , 727 N.E.2d 397 (2000) (holding the principal’s grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule; instead, the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment); Lane v. City of Kotzebue, 982 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Alaska 1999) (stating “An employee’s statements, to be admissible as nonhearsay admissions of party-opponent, do not have to be authorized by the employer; it is enough that they concern the employees’ duties.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lane v. City of Kotzebuegreen2 sentences2000See Vojas v. K mart Corp., 312 Ill.App.3d 544 , 245 Ill.Dec. 144 , 727 N.E.2d 397 (2000) (holding the principal’s grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule; instead, the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment); Lane v. City of Kotzebue, 982 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Alaska 1999) (stating “An employee’s statements, to be admissible as nonhearsay admissions of party-opponent, do not have to be authorized by the employer; it is enough that they concern the employees’ duties.”). 2000App.3d 544 , 245 Ill.Dec. 144 , 727 N.E.2d 397 (2000) (holding the principal's grant of authority to speak is not the main concern in applying the party-admission exception to the hearsay rule; instead, the test is whether the statement concerns matters within the scope of the employment); *863 Lane v. City of Kotzebue, 982 P.2d 1270, 1273 (Alaska 1999) (stating "An employee's statements, to be admissible as nonhearsay admissions of party-opponent, do not have to be authorized by the employer; it is enough that they concern the employees' duties."). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Simmonsgreen1 sentence1997Simmons, supra at 238 , 662 A.2d at 634 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Senecal v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1999Senecal v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Walsh Assoc.), 57 Pa.Cmwlth. 180 , 425 A.2d 1200 , 1203 n.4 (1981)(a statement which falls within the party admission exception to hearsay may be used as substantial evidence). 1999Senecal v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Walsh Assoc.), 57 Pa.Cmwlth. 180 , 425 A.2d 1200 , 1203 n.4 (1981)(a statement which falls within the party admission exception to hearsay may be used as substantial evidence). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.