National Union Life Insurance v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that, when imposing a sentence, the court must consider the factors set forth in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9721(b
• finding that allegations claiming the court failed to consider factors in Section 9721(b) and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence raises a substantial question
• holding: defendant’s claim “that his sentence is excessive because the sentencing court relied on ‘impermissible factors’ . . . [is a] challeng[e to] the discretionary aspects of his sentence”
• stating that “[s]entencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion”
• stating that Superior Court may review claims that fail to comply with Rule 2119(f) if Commonwealth does not object and absence of Rule 2119(f) statement does not significantly hamper ability to review appellant’s argument
• holding a sentencing court “has wide discretion in sentencing and can, on the appropriate record and for the appropriate -8- J-S41045-19 reasons, consider any legal factor in imposing a sentence in the aggravated range.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).