Supreme Court created exception in Pennsylvania

2008This problem was resolved in Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129 , 371 A.2d 468 (1977), wherein the supreme court created an exception to the practice established in Webster , when the trial record is inadequate to provide a basis for review of the remaining claims or where the claims were not ruled on by the trial court.

2008This problem was resolved in Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 472 Pa. 129 , 371 A.2d 468 (1977), wherein the supreme court created an exception to the practice established in Webster , when the trial record is inadequate to provide a basis for review of the remaining claims or where the claims were not ruled on by the trial court.

1996This doctrine, as ultimately crafted by our Supreme Court, provided that a collateral attack upon a conviction for which a sentence has been fully served is not moot where the petitioner can demonstrate that the conviction will affect a subsequent criminal prosecution, Commonwealth *130 v. Sheehan, 446 Pa. 35 , 285 A.2d 465 (1971), or will have either actual or potential civil consequences, Commonwealth v. Doria, 468 Pa. 534 , 364 A.2d 322 (1976).

1996This doctrine, as ultimately crafted by our Supreme Court, provided that a collateral attack upon a conviction for which a sentence has been fully served is not moot where the petitioner can demonstrate that the conviction will affect a subsequent criminal prosecution, Commonwealth *130 v. Sheehan, 446 Pa. 35 , 285 A.2d 465 (1971), or will have either actual or potential civil consequences, Commonwealth v. Doria, 468 Pa. 534 , 364 A.2d 322 (1976).

2013In Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), the Supreme Court created an exception to the general doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2009In United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 , 108 S.Ct. 864 , 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988), the Supreme Court created an exception to the rule it set forth in Griffin and held that an otherwise inappropriate remark does not run afoul of Griffin if it constitutes fair response to arguments raised by the defense: In the present case it is evident that the prosecutorial comment did not treat the defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt, but instead referred to the possibility of testifying as one of several opportunities which the defendant was afforded, contrary to the statement of his counsel

2009In United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25 , 108 S.Ct. 864 , 99 L.Ed.2d 23 (1988), the Supreme Court created an exception to the rule it set forth in Griffin and held that an otherwise inappropriate remark does not run afoul of Griffin if it constitutes fair response to arguments raised by the defense: In the present case it is evident that the prosecutorial comment did not treat the defendant's silence as substantive evidence of guilt, but instead referred to the possibility of testifying as one of several opportunities which the defendant was afforded, contrary to the statement of his counsel

1996This doctrine, as ultimately crafted by our Supreme Court, provided that a collateral attack upon a conviction for which a sentence has been fully served is not moot where the petitioner can demonstrate that the conviction will affect a subsequent criminal prosecution, Commonwealth *130 v. Sheehan, 446 Pa. 35 , 285 A.2d 465 (1971), or will have either actual or potential civil consequences, Commonwealth v. Doria, 468 Pa. 534 , 364 A.2d 322 (1976).

1996This doctrine, as ultimately crafted by our Supreme Court, provided that a collateral attack upon a conviction for which a sentence has been fully served is not moot where the petitioner can demonstrate that the conviction will affect a subsequent criminal prosecution, Commonwealth *130 v. Sheehan, 446 Pa. 35 , 285 A.2d 465 (1971), or will have either actual or potential civil consequences, Commonwealth v. Doria, 468 Pa. 534 , 364 A.2d 322 (1976).

1996The Court then noted that "[b]ecause of the general nature of this requirement, the Supreme Court created an exception to the mootness doctrine, which was known as the `collateral consequences' doctrine." Id. at 129, 579 A.2d at 964-965 .

1996The Court then noted that “[b]ecause of the general nature of this requirement, the Supreme Court created an exception to the mootness doctrine, which was known as the ‘collateral consequences’ doctrine.” Id. at 129, 579 A.2d at 964-965 .