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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 30 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Com. v. Rivera, W..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Com. v. Rivera, W. Anchor | green | “hearsay generally is inadmissible unless it falls within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule delineated in the pennsylvania rules of evidence.” | 18 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Yandamuri | green | “where, as here, the defendant is appealing the ruling of the suppression court, we may consider only the evidence of the commonwealth and so much of the evidence for the defense as remains uncontradicted.” | 7 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Byrd | green | “the suppression court is free to believe all, some or none of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.