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.
9 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 515 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. McAfee.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. McAfee 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.” | 151 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Tirado | green | “the sentence violates either a specific provision of the sentencing scheme set forth in the sentencing code or a particular fundamental norm underlying the sentencing process.” | 91 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Moury | green | “the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” | 68 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Tirado | green | “our inquiry must focus on the reasons for which the appeal is sought, in contrast to the facts underlying the appeal, which are necessary only to decide the appeal on the merits.” | 65 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. McAfee | green | “two requirements must be met before we will review this challenge on its merits.” | 47 |
| 6 | Commonwealth v. McAfee | green | “first, an appellant must set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence.” | 43 |
| 7 | Commonwealth v. Provenzano | green | “additionally, we cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.” | 21 |
| 8 | Commonwealth v. Dodge | green | “the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences may raise a substantial question in only the most extreme circumstances, such as where the aggregate sentence is unduly harsh, considering the nature of the crimes and the length of imprisonment.” | 17 |
| 9 | Commonwealth v. Provenzano | green | “we cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.” | 12 |
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.