Commonwealth v. Rhoads

How courts have described this case

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

• Megan’s Law does not offend the separation of powers doctrine because the law is substantive, not procedural
• Megan’s Law does not offend the one-bill/one-subject requirement because all the laws passed in the bill containing Megan’s law were germane to one general subject

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. P.L.S.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-02-02· cited 124×
• Commonwealth v. Howe
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-01-26· cited 90×
• Commonwealth v. Kopicz
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-12-19· cited 45×
• In the Interest of K.A.P.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-01-19· cited 39×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-06-09· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Neiman
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-09-08· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Mullins
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-08-10· cited 11×
• Commonwealth v. Anthony
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-01-07· cited 2×
• Commonwealth v. Mullins
  Bucks County Court of Common Pleas· 2005-02-14· cited 2×
• In Re KAP
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-01-19
• Com. v. PLS
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-02-02

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Smith v. Doe
  Supreme Court· 2003-03-05· cited 1,492×
• Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn
  Supreme Court· 2008-02-26· cited 584×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-09-25· cited 383×
• Commonwealth v. Barud
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-07-30· cited 175×
• Commonwealth v. Means
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-06-25· cited 99×