Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1978–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Davis, C.green2 sentences2024Here, the second preliminary hearing occurred before the president judge of the trial court rather than the magisterial district judge who presided over the first preliminary hearing, Davis, 242 A.3d at 931-34 (stating that an “issuing authority” under Rule 544 refers to the specific magistrate who dismissed or permitted the withdrawal of the charges or conducted a preliminary hearing), and the record does not indicate that the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting the reassignment. 2024Here, the second preliminary hearing occurred before the president judge of the trial court rather than the magisterial district judge who presided over the first preliminary hearing, Davis, 242 A.3d at 931-34 (stating that an “issuing authority” under Rule 544 refers to the specific magistrate who dismissed or permitted the withdrawal of the charges or conducted a preliminary hearing), and the record does not indicate that the Commonwealth filed a motion requesting the reassignment. | 1 | 1 |
Liciaga v. Court of Common Pleasgreen1 sentence2021Furthermore, McClelland is not implicated here as the Commonwealth did not rely “solely” on the transcript of Rogers’ testimony at the refile hearing, ____________________________________________ 4 But cf. Commonwealth v. Perez, ___ A.3d ___, No. 9 EAP 2020 (Pa. filed April 29, 2021), slip op. at 3 (noting that at the outset of the refile hearing the court of common pleas stated that “it had ‘read the notes of testimony’ from the first preliminary hearing” and then heard testimony from additional witnesses) (citation omitted); Liciaga v. Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, 566 A.2d 246, 24 | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Kennedygreen1 sentence2020It is well-settled that “this Court may consider only the facts that have been duly certified in the record when deciding an appeal.” Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 151 A.3d 1117, 1127 (Pa. Super. 2016) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Millsgreen1 sentence2019See Mills, 162 A.3d at 325 . | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Singletarygreen2 sentences2003See Commonwealth v. Medrano, 788 A.2d 422, 429 (Pa.Super.2001) (“a careful reading of Moore makes clear that the presentation of new evidence is one way for the Commonwealth to refile dismissed charges”); Singletary, 803 A.2d at 774 (“to the extent that we also observed that the proposed additional evidence was or should not have been known to the Commonwealth at the time of the first preliminary hearing, this [language in Moore ] was merely dictum”). 2003See Commonwealth v. Medrano, 788 A.2d 422, 429 (Pa.Super.2001) ("a careful reading of Moore makes clear that the presentation of new evidence is one way for the Commonwealth to refile dismissed charges"); Singletary, 803 A.2d at 774 ("to the extent that we also observed that the proposed additional evidence was or should not have been known to the Commonwealth at the time of the first preliminary hearing, this [language in Moore ] was merely dictum"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Medranogreen2 sentences2003See Commonwealth v. Medrano, 788 A.2d 422, 429 (Pa.Super.2001) (“a careful reading of Moore makes clear that the presentation of new evidence is one way for the Commonwealth to refile dismissed charges”); Singletary, 803 A.2d at 774 (“to the extent that we also observed that the proposed additional evidence was or should not have been known to the Commonwealth at the time of the first preliminary hearing, this [language in Moore ] was merely dictum”). 2003See Commonwealth v. Medrano, 788 A.2d 422, 429 (Pa.Super.2001) ("a careful reading of Moore makes clear that the presentation of new evidence is one way for the Commonwealth to refile dismissed charges"); Singletary, 803 A.2d at 774 ("to the extent that we also observed that the proposed additional evidence was or should not have been known to the Commonwealth at the time of the first preliminary hearing, this [language in Moore ] was merely dictum"). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Jordengreen2 sentences1988See Commonwealth v. Jorden, 333 Pa.Super. 291, 303 , 482 A.2d 573, 579 (1984). 9 . 1988See Commonwealth v. Jorden, 333 Pa.Super. 291, 303 , 482 A.2d 573, 579 (1984). 9 . | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Garrettgreen2 sentences1986App. 1970); Wilson v. Garrett, 104 Ariz. 57 , 448 P.2d 857, 859 (1969); Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d at 138 . 714 P.2d at 646-47 . (footnote omitted).” After concluding that the prosecutor was forum-shopping simply because he disagreed with the decision of the judge who presided at the first preliminary hearing, the court noted: “To curb such abusive practices, many states have limited prosecutorial discretion to re-file charges. 1986App. 1970); Wilson v. Garrett, 104 Ariz. 57 , 448 P.2d 857, 859 (1969); Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d at 138 . 714 P.2d at 646-47 . (footnote omitted).” After concluding that the prosecutor was forum-shopping simply because he disagreed with the decision of the judge who presided at the first preliminary hearing, the court noted: “To curb such abusive practices, many states have limited prosecutorial discretion to re-file charges. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Haileygreen2 sentences1978Crim.P. 140(f)(1), a preliminary hearing shall not be less than three days nor more than ten days after the preliminary arraignment. [3] Although a technical violation of Rule 140(f)(1) did occur in the instant case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. Hailey, 470 Pa. 488, 509 , 368 A.2d 1261, 1272 (1977), has ruled that unless an accused is able ". . . to demonstrate a causal connection between any prejudicial event and the alleged irregularity" then the remedy of dismissal is inappropriate if the hearing substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 140(f). 1978Crim.P. 140(f)(1), a preliminary hearing shall not be less than three days nor more than ten days after the preliminary arraignment. [3] Although a technical violation of Rule 140(f)(1) did occur in the instant case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in Commonwealth v. Hailey, 470 Pa. 488, 509 , 368 A.2d 1261, 1272 (1977), has ruled that unless an accused is able ". . . to demonstrate a causal connection between any prejudicial event and the alleged irregularity" then the remedy of dismissal is inappropriate if the hearing substantially complied with the requirements of Rule 140(f). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hilliard
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 24 and 25. ____________________________________________ 2 At the first preliminary hearing, the Commonwealth introduced the written statement that Martinez gave to the police on September 29, 2016. 2019Id. at 19 . 3 According to the DNA lab results, the blood on Appellant’s shirt was Hazelton’s. | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Commonwealth v. Moore
green
2 sentences2003At the hearing, Appellee’s counsel argued that our Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Moore, 749 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super.2000) precluded the Commonwealth from refiling charges in the absence of new evidence that was not available or discoverable before the first preliminary hearing. 2003At the hearing, Appellee's counsel argued that our Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Moore, 749 A.2d 505 (Pa.Super.2000) precluded the Commonwealth from refiling charges in the absence of new evidence that was not available or discoverable before the first preliminary hearing. | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Commonwealth v. Whitaker
green
2 sentences1979If the first complaint were withdrawn by the prosecution at the first preliminary hearing, Com. v. Whitaker, 467 Pa. 436 , 359 A.2d 174 (1976) would control. 1979If the first complaint were withdrawn by the prosecution at the first preliminary hearing, Com. v. Whitaker, 467 Pa. 436 , 359 A.2d 174 (1976) would control. | 2 | 1978–1979 |
Boyer v. Walker
green
1 sentence2002“It is well settled that where the result is correct, an appellate court may affirm a lower court’s decision on any ground without regard to the ground re *773 lied upon by the lower court itself.” Boyer v. Walker, 714 A.2d 458 , 468 n. 10. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Commonwealth v. Waller
green
2 sentences2002In fact, the cases we cited in Moore do not support the conclusion that Singletary urges upon us. ¶ 13 For instance, in Commonwealth v. Waller, 453 Pa.Super. 36 , 682 A.2d 1292 (1996) (en banc), the Commonwealth attempted to appeal an order dismissing charges, without prejudice, because the Commonwealth’s witnesses did not appear at the time of trial. 2002In fact, the cases we cited in Moore do not support the conclusion that Singletary urges upon us. ¶ 13 For instance, in Commonwealth v. Waller, 453 Pa.Super. 36 , 682 A.2d 1292 (1996) (en banc), the Commonwealth attempted to appeal an order dismissing charges, without prejudice, because the Commonwealth’s witnesses did not appear at the time of trial. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Commonwealth v. Shoop
green
1 sentence1995This court stated that “where the Commonwealth in good faith alleges improper dismissal by a district justice, it must have the opportunity to bring the re-arrest before another district justice.” Id. at 610 , 617 A.2d at 353 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Commonwealth v. Jones
green
1 sentence1995This court stated that “where the Commonwealth in good faith alleges improper dismissal by a district justice, it must have the opportunity to bring the re-arrest before another district justice.” Id. at 610 , 617 A.2d at 353 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Brickey
green
2 sentences1986App. 1970); Wilson v. Garrett, 104 Ariz. 57 , 448 P.2d 857, 859 (1969); Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d at 138 . 714 P.2d at 646-47 . (footnote omitted).” After concluding that the prosecutor was forum-shopping simply because he disagreed with the decision of the judge who presided at the first preliminary hearing, the court noted: “To curb such abusive practices, many states have limited prosecutorial discretion to re-file charges. 1986Some states have enacted statutes or court rules to limit discretion either through judicial oversight mechanisms or by prohibiting re-filing without new or additional evidence, while others have acted through court decisions.” 714 P.2d at 647 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Stockwell v. State
green
1 sentence1986App. 1970); Wilson v. Garrett, 104 Ariz. 57 , 448 P.2d 857, 859 (1969); Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d at 138 . 714 P.2d at 646-47 . (footnote omitted).” After concluding that the prosecutor was forum-shopping simply because he disagreed with the decision of the judge who presided at the first preliminary hearing, the court noted: “To curb such abusive practices, many states have limited prosecutorial discretion to re-file charges. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Revtai
green
2 sentences1986Hatcher, supra 345 Pa.Super. at 486 , 498 A.2d at 928 ; Revtai, supra 343 Pa.Super. at 153 , 494 A.2d at 401 . 1986Hatcher, supra 345 Pa.Super. at 486 , 498 A.2d at 928 ; Revtai, supra 343 Pa.Super. at 153 , 494 A.2d at 401 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Hatcher
green
2 sentences1986Hatcher, supra 345 Pa.Super. at 486 , 498 A.2d at 928 ; Revtai, supra 343 Pa.Super. at 153 , 494 A.2d at 401 . 1986Hatcher, supra 345 Pa.Super. at 486 , 498 A.2d at 928 ; Revtai, supra 343 Pa.Super. at 153 , 494 A.2d at 401 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Commonwealth v. Hetherington
green
2 sentences1984Commonwealth v. Weitkamp, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 386 A.2d 1014 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969). 3 . 1984Commonwealth v. Weitkamp, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 386 A.2d 1014 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969). 3 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Riggins Case
green
2 sentences1984Commonwealth v. Weitkamp, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 386 A.2d 1014 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969). 3 . 1984Commonwealth v. Weitkamp, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 386 A.2d 1014 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969). 3 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Commonwealth v. Weitkamp
green
1 sentence1984Commonwealth v. Weitkamp, 255 Pa.Superior Ct. 305, 386 A.2d 1014 (1978); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17 , 331 A.2d 205 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321 , 254 A.2d 616 (1969). 3 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.