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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 16 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. Seagraves.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Seagraves Anchor | green | “the determination of whether a particular case raises a substantial question is to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” | 9 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Treadway | green | “in order to establish a substantial question, the appellant must show actions by the trial court inconsistent with the sentencing code or contrary to the fundamental norms underlying the sentencing process.” | 7 |
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.