Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 97

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 9799.74

 Standing for Pennsylvania State Police.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 9799.74.  Standing for Pennsylvania State Police.

Except for petitions filed under section 9799.59(a) (relating to exemptions from certain notifications), the Pennsylvania State Police shall have standing to appear and contest a filing in a court of this Commonwealth which seeks to challenge in any way the obligation of an individual required to register with the Pennsylvania State Police under this subchapter.

(June 12, 2018, P.L.140, No.29, eff. imd.)

 

2018 Amendment.  Act 29 reenacted section 9799.74.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: Com. v. Wilson, K.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Com. v. Wilson, K. (2019) pasuperct “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.74. 3Necessarily, I would reverse Martin and Stafford to the extent that the trial court can impose SORNA requirements as part of sentencing.”
Com. v. Lemanski, B. (2019) pasuperct “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.74. 4Necessarily, I would reverse Martin and Stafford to the extent that the trial court can impose SORNA requirements as part of sentencing.”
Com. v. Firpi, C. (2019) pasuperct “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.74. 5Necessarily, I would reverse Martin and Stafford to the extent that the trial court can impose SORNA requirements as part of sentencing.”
Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Witmayer, M. (2020) pa “521; 42 Pa.C.S. § 9799.74) challenge the propriety of Witmayer’s pursuit of relief under the terms and time constraints of the PCRA.”
Commonwealth v. Kale, H. Pet: PA State Police (2020) pa “The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is: Should the Superior Court’s Opinion and Order be reversed because its interpretation of PSP’s standing, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.74, is contrary to the plain language set forth in the statute?”
Commonwealth v. Kale, H. Pet: PA State Police (2020) pa “The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is: Should the Superior Court’s Opinion and Order be reversed because its interpretation of PSP’s standing, pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. §9799.74, is contrary to the plain language set forth in the statute?”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.