Commonwealth v. Gosselin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[t]he basic tenet of statutory construction requires a court to construe the words of the statute according to their plain meaning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Seeton v. Pennsylvania Game Commission
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-12-27· cited 48×
• Commonwealth v. Smith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-02-15· cited 23×
• Lahr v. City of York
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-04-09· cited 13×
• United States v. Southern California Edison Co.
  E.D. California· 2006-02-06· cited 4×
• In the Interest of: A.M. Appeal of: A.M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-08-07· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Grom v. Burgoon
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-03-08· cited 72×
• RM v. Baxter Ex Rel. TM
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-08-21· cited 43×
• Commonwealth v. Parks
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-02-23· cited 39×
• Lookenbill v. Garrett
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-03-22· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. DeFusco
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-25· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Neitzel
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-05-21· cited 11×
• Dickerson v. Commonwealth
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1991-02-21· cited 6×
• Wernersville State Hospital v. Peters
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-05-15· cited 4×