Pa. Dep't of Educ. v. King

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that statements made in a brief may be deemed judicial admissions so long as the statement is deliberate, clear and unambiguous
• concluding that counsel’s statements in appellate brief rose to level of “deliberate, clear[,] and unambiguous” so as to constitute an admission from the defendant that justified an enhanced sentence under Blakely
• opining that court had “discretion to consider a statement made in a brief to be a judicial admission, binding on both this court and the trial court”
• finding that statements in a brief “rise to the level of” judicial admissions
• noting that courts “have discretion to consider a statement made in a brief to be a judicial admission” so long as the statement is “deliberate, clear, and unambiguous” (quoting MacDonald v. General Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337, 340 (6th Cir. 1997))
• statements made on brief may be considered judicial admissions

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).