6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Williams, R.green1 sentence2023This Court has held that when the Commonwealth proves that a defendant authored the relevant text messages, it is “proper for the trial court to admit those text messages into evidence under the party-opponent exception to the rule against hearsay.” Commonwealth v. Williams, 241 A.3d 1094, 1103 (Pa.Super. 2020). | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Toys\ R\" Us-Penngreen1 sentence2019With respect to the admission by a party opponent exception under Rule 803(25)(D), the proponent of the statement must demonstrate that: “(1) the declarant was an agent or employee of a party opponent; (2) the declarant made the statement while employed by the party opponent; and (3) the statement concerned a matter within the scope of agency or employment.” Harris v. Toys “R” Us-Penn, Inc., 880 A.2d 1270, 1275 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Murraygreen1 sentence2019See id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139, 1157-58 (Pa.2006) (defendant’s statement admissible under the party opponent exception to hearsay rule); Commonwealth v. Barnes, 871 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa.Super.2005) (affirming admission of letters written by defendant under party opponent exception). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Barnesgreen1 sentence2016See Commonwealth v. Edwards, 903 A.2d 1139, 1157-58 (Pa.2006) (defendant’s statement admissible under the party opponent exception to hearsay rule); Commonwealth v. Barnes, 871 A.2d 812, 818 (Pa.Super.2005) (affirming admission of letters written by defendant under party opponent exception). | 1 | 1 |
Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences1988See Kilpatrick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 201 , 429 A.2d 133 (1981). 1988See Kilpatrick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 201 , 429 A.2d 133 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Huegel v. Mifflin Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2016She claims the trial court erred by excluding her testimony as hearsay and not subject to the admission of a party opponent exception to hearsay.2 Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.