Commonwealth v. Martin

How courts have described this case

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

• requiring an indigent to pay a $5,000.00 fine was per se manifestly excessive and constituted too severe [a] punishment
• requiring an indigent to pay a $5,000.00 fine was per se manifestly excessive and constituted too severe punishment
• requiring an indignent to pay a $5,000.00 fine was per se manifestly excessive and constituted too severe [a] punishment
• requiring an indigent to pay a $5,000.00 fine was per se manifestly excessive and constituted too severe [a] punishment
• requiring an indigent to pay a $5,000.00 fine was per se manifestly excessive and constituted too severe [a] punishment
• holding court must hold ability-to-pay hearing when imposing fine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Rivera
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-07-03· cited 89×
• Com. v. May, R.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-02-15· cited 34×
• State v. Peterson
  Utah Supreme Court· 1984-04-13· cited 28×
• Commonwealth v. Wall
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-01-20· cited 26×
• Com. v. Snyder, C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-04-09· cited 26×
• Commonwealth v. Pride
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-12-02· cited 10×
• Commonwealth v. Ciptak
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-05-05· cited 7×
• Com. v. Hudson, M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-04-16· cited 4×
• Com. v. Lopez, A.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-03-23· cited 1×
• Commonwealth v. Lopez, A., Aplt.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-08-16

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Wrona
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-03-18· cited 113×
• Commonwealth v. Riggins
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-12-11· cited 41×
• Commonwealth v. Bilinski
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1959-09-16· cited 31×