Commonwealth v. Laventure (2006)
green
· 28 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 7 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201020182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Com. v. Gupton, A. (2019)
As he did below, in arguing to the contrary, Gupton relies upon our Supreme Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109, 116-17 (Pa. 2006).
green
Com. v. Williams, S. (2025)
Our Supreme Court has recognized that “only the filing of a valid complaint or the issuance of a valid warrant is sufficient to toll the statute of limitations.” Commonwealth v. Laventure, 586 Pa. 348, 362 , 894 A.2d 109, 117 (2006) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
Commonwealth v. Pacheco, D., Aplt. (2021)
Left 6 Cf. Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109, 118 (Pa. 2006) (“[I]t is clear that the mere specification of all information that is available is not in and of itself enough; rather, actual reasonable particularity is required sufficient to limit governmental discretion in the execution of the [arrest] warrant and pursuit of the associated criminal process.”). [J-2-2021] [MO: Baer, C.J.] - 10 unrestrained, CSLI surveillance creates a tapestry of location information — n…
green
Com. v. Gadson, C. (2016)
Commonwealth v. Laventure, 586 Pa 348, 364, 894 A.2d 109, 119 (Pa. 2006).
green
People v. Robinson (2010)
(See People v. Martinez (N.Y.App.Div. 2008) 52 A.D.3d 68 [ 855 N.Y.S.2d 522 ] ( Martinez ); State v. Danley (Ohio Ct.Com.Pl. 2006) 2006 Ohio 3585 [ 853 N.E.2d 1224 ] ( Danley ); State v. Davis (Ct.App. 2005) 2005 WI App 98 [ 281 Wis.2d 118 , 698 N.W.2d 823 ]; State v. Dabney (Ct.App.2003) 2003 WI App 108 [ 264 Wis.2d 843 , 663 N.W.2d 366 ] ( Dabney ); cf. State v. Belt (2008) 285 Kan. 949 [ 179 P.3d 443, 450 ] ( Belt ) [approving the practice "in the abstract," but affirming…
green
Com. v. Dorsey, J. (2026)
See also Pa.R.Crim.P. 504(2) (requiring every complaint to contain “a description of the defendant as nearly may be”) (emphasis added).2 As a result, “a warrant must describe with sufficient particularity the person or property to be searched, and must not be sought for the purpose of ____________________________________________ 2 Our Supreme Court has determined that while these two constitutional provisions are similar, “the text of the Pennsylvania Constitution, ‘as nearl…
citing Commonwealth v. Waltson, 555 Pa. 223, 229 , 724 A.2d 289, 291 (1998) (citation omitted)
green
Slozer, O. v. Slattery, P. (2015)
Co. v. Huchber, 690 A.2d 1239, 1242 (Pa. Super. 1997); see also Commonwealth v. Laventure, 894 A.2d 109, 116-117 (Pa. 2006) (applying the same principles in disapproving of the Commonwealth’s attempt to substitute in an amended complaint a known named defendant for the “John Doe” defendant named in the original complaint after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations).
applying the same principles in disapproving of the Commonwealth’s attempt to substitute in an amended complaint a known named defendant for the “John Doe” defendant named in the original complaint after the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations