Matter of Dandu v. Jatamoni

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the notification requirement of Section 9718(c), as it relates to Section 9718(a)(3), is constitutional
• holding that the notification requirement of Section 9718(c), as it relates to Section 9718(a)(3), is constitutional
• providing that “the doctrine of stare decisis does not apply to pronouncements that are not adequately supported in reason”
• stating that \the holding of a judicial decision is to be read against its facts\
• holding mandatory minimum sentencing provision that does not require proof of any aggravating fact does not violate the Sixth Amendment pursuant to Alleyne
• cautioning that “some passages of Wolfe [were] written in overbroad terms to the degree that they disapprove Section 9718 as a whole, when the [Supreme] Court was not considering the materially distinct operation of subsection (a)(3)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).