green
Positive treatment
Hot · 68 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 1×
107.6 score
“ue diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort”
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
Com. v. Adams Diaz, S.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
See Martz, 232 A.3d at 810 (explaining that “[d]ue diligence is a fact-specific concept that must be determined on a case-by-case basis” (citation omitted and emphasis added)); see also Commonwealth v. Shaw, 247 A.3d 1008 , 1017 (Pa. 2021) (reiterating that “[i]t is not an appellate court’s function to engage in fact-finding” (citation omitted)); but see Selenski, 994 A.2d at 1089 (explaining that “the trial court[] failed to focus its inquiry on due diligence[,]” and the proper action is a remand for the trial court to conduct a proper due diligence analysis, but our Supreme Cou…
examined
Cited "but see"
Com. v. Davis, R.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
The instant appeal involves a Rule 600(A) motion, and if the trial court finds that the Commonwealth violated Rule 600(A), “the trial court must dismiss the charges.” Leaner, 202 A.3d at 766-67 (citation omitted). - 10 - J-A12023-23 function to engage in fact-finding” (citation omitted)); but see Selenski, 994 A.2d at 1089 (explaining that “the trial court[] failed to focus its inquiry on due diligence[,]” and the proper action is a remand for the trial court to conduct a proper due diligence analysis, but our Supreme Court declined to do so “[i]n the interest of judicial economy,�…
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Com. v. Graves, N.
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
ue diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Collins, A.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dempsey, M.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, 289 A.3d 959 , 982 (Pa. 2023) (citing Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Dougan, A.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Holly, M.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Weiss, J.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Fenton, A.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Britt, T.
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require -3- J-S37017-25 perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, [ 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 ( Pa. 2010)].
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Baboolal, A., M.
Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Meeks, W.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted). “[I]f the Commonwealth meets its burden of proving due diligence, only then may the trial court rely upon its own unavailability due to a congested calendar or other - 10 - J-A17018-25 scheduling problems as justification for denying the defendant’s motion.” Harth, 252 A.3d at 618.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Kent, R.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Sutton, K.
“It is the Commonwealth’s burden to demonstrate due diligence by a preponderance of the evidence to avail itself of an exclusion under Rule 600.” Commonwealth v. Graves, 328 A.3d 1005 , 1009 (Pa. Super. 2024) (citing Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Haun, P.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by- case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Swift, J.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted). “[I]f the Commonwealth meets its burden of proving due diligence, only then may the trial court rely upon its own unavailability due to a congested calendar or other scheduling problems as justification for denying the defendant’s motion.” Harth, 252 A.3d at 618. - 24 - J-S34030-24 Swift argues that the trial cour…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, A.
Determining whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence is a fact-specific inquiry, which “does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 at comment (quoting Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Laurenzi, F.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Butts, L.
The Commonwealth’s actions after the withdrawal or dismissal of the first complaint only become relevant for Rule 600 purposes if the Commonwealth - 14 - J-S45036-24 was forced to file a second complaint because it failed to exercise due diligence in prosecuting the first complaint.6,7 Determining whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence is a fact-specific inquiry, which “does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 at comment (quoting Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 10…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Wolfe, K.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citing Commonwealth v. Hill, 736 A.2d 578, 588 (Pa. 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ackerman, J.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Lapaglia, M.
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, [] 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 ([Pa.] 2010). ____________________________________________ 4 In Commonwealth v. Wiggins, 248 A.3d 1285 (Pa. Super. 2021), we observed the General Assembly’s 2013 replacement of “old” Rule 600 with “new” Rule 600 “eliminated the distinction between these two buckets of removable calculable time[,]” and any periods of delay caused by t…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Williams, C.
Notably, where the trial court does not conduct a Rule 600 due diligence analysis, the “proper action [is] to remand to the trial court to determine whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence pursuant to Rule 600.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51, 60 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1088 (2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Burns, N.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Endy, C.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010). “[T]he Commonwealth must do everything reasonable within its power to guarantee that a trial begins on time,” Colon, 87 A.3d at 359 (citation omitted), and it bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Zorrer, M.
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Jaszczak, R.
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Shabazz, O.
“A Rule 600 motion requires a showing of due diligence by a preponderance of the evidence for the Commonwealth to avail itself of an exclusion.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Weeks, A.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010). “[T]he Commonwealth must do everything reasonable within its power to guarantee that a trial begins on time,” Colon, 87 A.3d at 359 (citation omitted), and it bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exercised due diligence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Davis, C.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect -5- J-A01025-24 vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McKinzie, E.
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 606 Pa. 51 , 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McDonald, K.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Matthews, D.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Victor, W.
“If the delay occurred as the result of circumstances ____________________________________________ 4 “Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010). -8- J-S34043-23 beyond the Commonwealth’s control and despite its due diligence, the time is excluded.” Commonwealth v. Harth, 252 A.3d 600 , 617 (Pa. 2021) (quoting Pa.R.Crim.P. 600, cmt.).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Simmons, D.
Judicial delay, i.e., delay caused by the ____________________________________________ 6 “A trial commences when the trial [court] determines that the parties are present and directs them to proceed to voir dire or to opening argument, or to the hearing of any motions that had been reserved for the time of trial, or to the taking of testimony, or to some other such first step in the trial.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 600 Comment. 7 “Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put fo…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Carmichael, I.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Bowersox, N.
Commonwealth v. Bradford, 46 A.3d 693, 700 (Pa. 2012); Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1087 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Amison, D.
To prove it acted with due diligence, the Commonwealth must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that it “put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Johnson, H., Aplt.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“Due diligence is fact specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Casanova-Lanzo, M.
“A Rule 600 motion requires a showing of due diligence by a preponderance of the evidence for the Commonwealth to avail itself of an exclusion.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Burgos, J.
Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).10 Conclusion The trial court erred in concluding that Rule 600 was suspended in Schuylkill County after June 14, 2020.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Stanko, T.
In determining whether the Commonwealth has exercised due diligence, the courts have explained that the inquiry “is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” - 11 - J-S14038-22 Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Richardson, A.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“A Rule 600 motion requires a showing of due diligence by a preponderance of the evidence for the Commonwealth to avail itself of an -6- J-A04012-22 exclusion.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Mackey, A.
“Due diligence is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Ungard, T.
Commonwealth v. Selenski, [] 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Krebs, J.
Due diligence “is fact-specific, to be determined case-by-case; it does not require perfect vigilance and punctilious care, but merely a showing the Commonwealth has put forth a reasonable effort.” Id. at 701-02 (quoting Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083,1089 (Pa. 2010)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Commonwealth v. Harth, K., Aplt.
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
Id. (citing Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010) (stating that, where the Superior Court determined that the trial court misconstrued Rule 600 and failed to focus upon the Commonwealth’s due diligence, “the proper action would have been a remand to the trial court to determine whether the Commonwealth exercised due diligence pursuant to Rule 600”)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. McDaniels, J.
Commonwealth v. Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1089 (Pa. 2010).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Com. v. Blenman, K.
Further, the rule states, [i]f, at any time, it is determined that the Commonwealth did not exercise due diligence, the court shall dismiss the charges and discharge the defendant. 10 Commonwealth 1,,Selenski, 994 A.2d 1083, 1088 (Pa. 2010) (internal citations omitted) .4 In relevant part, Rule 600 requires that trial shall commence within 365 days from the date on which the complaint is filed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Nancy A. WHITE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Respondent
v.
CONESTOGA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner
v.
CONESTOGA TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner
761 EAL 2009.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
May 19, 2010.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
[*51] ORDER
PER CURIAM.AND NOW, this 19th day of May 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
In reversing the Common Pleas Court’s dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction by reason of the administrative remedy provided by the TICA at 40 P.S. § 910 — 44(b), did the Superior Court err by holding that the statutory and decisional rule that adequate administrative remedies are exclusive does not apply to consumer class actions?