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.
4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 121 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. Disalvo.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Disalvo Anchor | green | “this court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” | 60 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Zirkle | green | “we have held that a claim that a court did not weigh the factors as an appellant wishes does not raise a substantial question.” | 27 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Downing | green | “this court has held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” | 19 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Disalvo | green | “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” | 15 |
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.