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 64 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. Caldwell.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Caldwell Anchor | green | “an excessive sentence claim-in conjunction with an assertion that the court failed to consider mitigating factors-raises a substantial question.” | 35 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Hill | green | “where a sentence is within the standard range of the guidelines, pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the sentencing code.” | 11 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Hill | green | “pennsylvania law views the sentence as appropriate under the sentencing code.” | 8 |
| 4 | Com. v. Strouse, C. | green | “(1) timely appealed; (2) properly preserved his objection in a post-sentence motion; (3) included in his brief a pa.r.a.p. 2119(f) concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal; and (4) raised a substantial question that the sentence is inappropriate under…” | 7 |
| 5 | Com. v. Lawrence, D. | green | “reweigh sentencing factors and impose judgment in place of the sentencing court where the lower court was fully aware of all mitigating factors.” | 3 |
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.