6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 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. Maygreen2 sentences2009Section 5914, "which is waivable only by the spouse asserting the privilege, prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were confidential when made and which were made during the marital relationship." Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237 , 656 A.2d 1335, 1341-1342 (1995). 2009Section 5914, "which is waivable only by the spouse asserting the privilege, prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were confidential when made and which were made during the marital relationship." Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237 , 656 A.2d 1335, 1341-1342 (1995). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Hancharikgreen2 sentences1997It appears that our courts have interpreted § 5914 to mean only that a waivable privilege exists, not that the challenged witness is truly “incompetent.” See Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237 , 656 A.2d 1335 (1995) (§ 5914 privilege is waivable by the spouse asserting the privilege); Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 534 Pa. 435 , 633 A.2d 1074 (1993) (same). 1997It appears that our courts have interpreted § 5914 to mean only that a waivable privilege exists, not that the challenged witness is truly “incompetent.” See Commonwealth v. May, 540 Pa. 237 , 656 A.2d 1335 (1995) (§ 5914 privilege is waivable by the spouse asserting the privilege); Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 534 Pa. 435 , 633 A.2d 1074 (1993) (same). | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Smallgreen1 sentence2024Our High Court has noted that “[§] 5914, which is waivable only by the spouse asserting the privilege, prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were confidential when made and which were made during the marital relationship.” Commonwealth v. Small, 980 A.2d 549, 561 (Pa. 2009) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Riosgreen2 sentences2013When considering whether appellate counsel had a reasonable basis for her actions, “we do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued: rather, we must examine whether counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.” Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583 , 920 A.2d 790, 799 (2007). 2013When considering whether appellate counsel had a reasonable basis for her actions, “we do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued: rather, we must examine whether counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.” Commonwealth v. Rios, 591 Pa. 583 , 920 A.2d 790, 799 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Newmangreen2 sentences1995This privilege, which is waivable only by the spouse asserting the privilege, prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were confidential when made and which were made during the marital relationship. 5 See Commonwealth v. Newman, 534 Pa. 424 , 633 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1993); Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 534 Pa. 435 , 633 A.2d 1074, 1077 (1993). 1995This privilege, which is waivable only by the spouse asserting the privilege, prevents a husband or wife from testifying against their spouse as to any communications which were confidential when made and which were made during the marital relationship. 5 See Commonwealth v. Newman, 534 Pa. 424 , 633 A.2d 1069, 1072 (1993); Commonwealth v. Hancharik, 534 Pa. 435 , 633 A.2d 1074, 1077 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.