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 1977–2010 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. McCartneygreen2 sentences2010See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cormas, 32 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 377 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1977) (citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. McCartney, 2 Pa.Cmwlth. 540 , 279 A.2d 77, 80 (1971)). 2010See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cormas, 32 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 377 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1977) (citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. McCartney, 2 Pa.Cmwlth. 540 , 279 A.2d 77, 80 (1971)). | 2 | 2 |
Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cormasgreen2 sentences2010See Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Cormas, 32 Pa.Cmwlth. 1 , 377 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1977) (citing Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. McCartney, 2 Pa.Cmwlth. 540 , 279 A.2d 77, 80 (1971)). 2007DOT alleges that the trial court “gave a break” to Park Way and Mazzarini because Mazzarini’s “business had never received a suspension, and ... the information which was missing was due to computer problems.” (Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) DOT relies on the proposition in Cormas that “it is a manifest abuse of discretion for a trial court to modify a suspension, or, worse, to reverse a suspension, when it finds that the party charged has committed a punishable violation but it disagrees with the penalty imposed.” Cor-mas, 377 A.2d at 1050 . | 1 | 3 |
People v. Banksgreen2 sentences1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). 1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Apodaca
green
2 sentences1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). 1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Rodriguez v. State
green
1 sentence1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Godfrey
green
1 sentence1995See People v. Banks, 202 A.D.2d 902 , 609 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3 Dept.1994); State v. Godfrey, 491 N.W.2d 173 (Iowa App.1992); State v. Apodaca, 112 N.M. 302 , 814 P.2d 1030 (App.1991), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 220 , 813 P.2d 1018 (1991); Rodriguez v. State, 776 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Commonwealth v. Ede Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1989We note however that both DOT and the trial court concluded that Sunday had violated Section 1103(d) of the Code. “[I]t is a manifest abuse of discretion for a trial court to modify a DOT suspension when it finds a punishable violation but disagrees with the penalty imposed.” 107 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 109-10 , 527 A.2d at 634 . 1989We note however that both DOT and the trial court concluded that Sunday had violated Section 1103(d) of the Code. “[I]t is a manifest abuse of discretion for a trial court to modify a DOT suspension when it finds a punishable violation but disagrees with the penalty imposed.” 107 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 109-10 , 527 A.2d at 634 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.