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.
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.