6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2026 3 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. Cookgreen2 sentences2026“Where … the defendant and his counsel offer competing contentions as to the readiness of defense counsel for trial, it is for the trial court to decide whose portrayal of defense counsel’s degree of preparedness is more accurate.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 612 , 952 A.2d 594, 618 (2008). 2026“Where … the defendant and his counsel offer competing contentions as to the readiness of defense counsel for trial, it is for the trial court to decide whose portrayal of defense counsel’s degree of preparedness is more accurate.” Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 612 , 952 A.2d 594, 618 (2008). | 4 | 4 |
Com. v. Hernandez, M.green1 sentence2024Further, “where, as here, the defendant and his counsel offer competing contentions as to the readiness of defense counsel for trial, it is for the trial court to decide whose portrayal of defense counsel’s degree of preparedness is more accurate.” Hernandez, 230 A.3d at 486 (citation omitted; emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Spotzgreen2 sentences2008See Spotz, 756 A.2d at 1150 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where court "investigated the matter and was assured by appellant's counsel that they would be able to advocate zealously on appellant's behalf"); Basemore, 582 A.2d at 866 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where appellant "stat[ed] that the defense investigation was not complete" but defense counsel "related that he was prepared to go to trial"). 2008See Spotz, 756 A.2d at 1150 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where court “investigated the matter and was assured by appellant’s counsel that they would be able to advocate zealously on appellant’s behalf’); Basemore, 582 A.2d at 866 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where appellant “stat[ed] that the defense investigation was not complete” but defense counsel “related that he was prepared to go to trial”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Basemoregreen2 sentences2008See Spotz, 756 A.2d at 1150 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where court "investigated the matter and was assured by appellant's counsel that they would be able to advocate zealously on appellant's behalf"); Basemore, 582 A.2d at 866 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where appellant "stat[ed] that the defense investigation was not complete" but defense counsel "related that he was prepared to go to trial"). 2008See Spotz, 756 A.2d at 1150 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where court “investigated the matter and was assured by appellant’s counsel that they would be able to advocate zealously on appellant’s behalf’); Basemore, 582 A.2d at 866 (finding no abuse of discretion by trial court in refusing to appoint new counsel where appellant “stat[ed] that the defense investigation was not complete” but defense counsel “related that he was prepared to go to trial”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.