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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 70 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. Mastromarino.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Mastromarino Anchor | green | “contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.” | 29 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Dunphy | green | “the right to appeal the discretionary aspects of a sentence is not absolute.” | 17 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Christine | green | “cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory rule 2119(f) statement.” | 10 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Feucht | green | “must explain where the sentence falls in relation to the sentencing guidelines, identify what specific provision of the sentencing code or what fundamental norm was violated, and explain how and why the trial court violated that particular provision or fundamental norm.” | 8 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. Feucht | green | “bald assertions or non-specific claims of error and must state the way in which the penalty imposed is inappropriate.” | 6 |
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.