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 1983–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019See Turner , 137 S.Ct. at 1898 (Kagan, J., dissenting) ("The defendants didn't offer an alternative perpetrator defense because the Government prevented them from learning what made it credible.... 2019The Commonwealth’s suppression of evidence that Robinson confessed to the Campbell murder (a confession made to two different people, on separate occasions) deprived Natividad of the opportunity to advance a defense theory more credible and viable than the one he pursued at trial.5 5 See Turner, 137 S.Ct. at 1898 (Kagan, J., dissenting) (“The defendants didn’t offer an alternative perpetrator defense because the Government prevented them from learning what made it credible. . . . | 2 | 2 |
J.G. v. Department of Public Welfaregreen2 sentences2021However, the court reasoned that though the CPSL “did not provide a mechanism for a perpetrator to challenge a founded report . . . ‘[t]his statutory omission does not mean that a named perpetrator in a founded report does not have any right of appeal.’” Id. at 1047, quoting J.G. v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 795 A.2d 1089, 1092 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). 2021In reaching its conclusion that an administrative hearing was required in this case, the court reviewed its prior decisions in J.G., 795 A.2d 1089 , and R.F. v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 801 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), wherein the court interpreted provisions of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§101-754, to require the Bureau to afford an administrative hearing to a named perpetrator challenging a founded report of child abuse when certain facts warranted resolution. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
R.F. v. Department of Public Welfare
green
1 sentence2021In reaching its conclusion that an administrative hearing was required in this case, the court reviewed its prior decisions in J.G., 795 A.2d 1089 , and R.F. v. Dep’t of Public Welfare, 801 A.2d 646 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002), wherein the court interpreted provisions of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. §§101-754, to require the Bureau to afford an administrative hearing to a named perpetrator challenging a founded report of child abuse when certain facts warranted resolution. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Commonwealth v. Rashed
green
2 sentences1983Our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v, Rashed, 496 Pa. 26 , 436 A.2d 134 (1981) recently addressed the claim that a prior inability to identify in a line-up coupled with an opportunity to observe the perpetrator at a hearing impermissibly tainted an in-court identification and that counsel therefore was ineffective for failing to move to suppress that identification. 1983Our Supreme Court in Commonwealth v, Rashed, 496 Pa. 26 , 436 A.2d 134 (1981) recently addressed the claim that a prior inability to identify in a line-up coupled with an opportunity to observe the perpetrator at a hearing impermissibly tainted an in-court identification and that counsel therefore was ineffective for failing to move to suppress that identification. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.