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 2 courts 2007–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Chambersgreen2 sentences2019See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)-(b)(2).1 To assert the newly-created-constitutional-right exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “a petitioner must prove that there is a new constitutional right and that the right has been held by that court to apply retroactively.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625 , 46 A.3d 715 (2012). 2019See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(1)-(b)(2).1 To assert the newly-created-constitutional-right exception under Section 9545(b)(1)(iii), “a petitioner must prove that there is a new constitutional right and that the right has been held by that court to apply retroactively.” Commonwealth v. Chambers, 35 A.3d 34, 41 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 616 Pa. 625 , 46 A.3d 715 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
Missouri v. Fryegreen1 sentence2024See Frye, 566 U.S. at 147 (holding a petitioner asserting a claim of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness in connection with a plea offer “must demonstrate a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective assistance of counsel.”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Turnergreen2 sentences2016See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § ____________________________________________ 1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 The amended PCRA petition is not in the certified record. -2- J-S43015-16 9545(b)(1-2). 2016See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § ____________________________________________ 1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 The amended PCRA petition is not in the certified record. -2- J-S43015-16 9545(b)(1-2). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Finleygreen1 sentence2016See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § ____________________________________________ 1 See Commonwealth v. Turner, 518 Pa. 491 , 544 A.2d 927 (1988) and Commonwealth v. Finley, 550 A.2d 213 (Pa.Super. 1988) (en banc). 2 The amended PCRA petition is not in the certified record. -2- J-S43015-16 9545(b)(1-2). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Bakergreen2 sentences2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted "`exculpatory evidence' that `would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.'" Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer ). 2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(h) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted “ ‘exculpatory evidence’ that ‘would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.’ ” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Yarrisgreen2 sentences2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(h) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted “ ‘exculpatory evidence’ that ‘would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.’ ” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer). 2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(h) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted “ ‘exculpatory evidence’ that ‘would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.’ ” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Khalil
green
1 sentence2017Commonwealth v. Khalil, 806 A.2d 415 (Pa. Super. 2002). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Commonwealth v. Palmer
green
2 sentences2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(ii) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted "`exculpatory evidence' that `would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.'" Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer ). 2007In one case, the Superior Court specifically held that a petitioner asserting the exception provided in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(h) had to meet the statutory requirements and, in addition, show that these new facts constituted “ ‘exculpatory evidence’ that ‘would have changed the outcome of the trial if it had been introduced.’ ” Commonwealth v. Palmer, 814 A.2d 700 (Pa.Super.2002) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2)(vi) and Commonwealth v. Yarris, 557 Pa. 12 , 731 A.2d 581, 588-91 (1999)); see also Commonwealth v. Baker, 828 A.2d 1146, 1147 (Pa.Super.2003) (following Palmer). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.