6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 139 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 Commonwealth v. Hoch.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Hoch Anchor | green | “a challenge to the discretionary aspects of a sentence must be considered a petition for permission to appeal, as the right to pursue such a claim is not absolute.” | 45 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Ventura | green | “a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” | 34 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Best | green | “must be considered a petition for permission to appeal.” | 34 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Downing | green | “aware of all appropriate sentencing factors and considerations.” | 12 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. Gonzalez | green | “excessive sentence claim in conjunction with an assertion that the court did not consider mitigating factors,” | 10 |
| 6 | Lott v. Lott | green | “a colorable argument that the sentence imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the sentencing code or is contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” | 4 |
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.