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.
11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Aarongreen2 sentences2025See Walker, supra at *3 (citing Commonwealth v. Aaron, 804 A.2d 39, 43 (Pa. Super. 2002) (“any delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time, even if the defendant was prepared to go to trial at an earlier date.”). 2025Lear, 325 A.3d 552 , 560 (Pa. 2024) (citations, original brackets, and some quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). “[T]he causation analysis precedes the due diligence inquiry, and it is only when the Commonwealth both caused the delay and lacked due diligence that the delay is properly included in the Rule 600 calculation.” Id. at 560-561 n.7. “[A]ny delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time, even if the defendant was prepared to go to trial at an earlier date.” Commonwealth v. Walker, 331 A.3d 43 , | 6 | 6 |
Com. v. Morgan, T.green2 sentences2025“Stated in the most general terms, when the Commonwealth causes delay [and failed to exercise due diligence], the Rule 600 clock continues to tick; when the defendant causes the delay, the clock stops.” 18 Commonwealth v. Morgan, 239 A.3d 1132, 1137 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted); see also Lear, 325 A.3d at 560; Walker, 331 A.3d at 46. 2025“Stated in the most general terms, when the Commonwealth causes delay [and failed to exercise due diligence], the Rule 600 clock continues to tick; when the defendant causes the delay, the clock stops.” 18 Commonwealth v. Morgan, 239 A.3d 1132, 1137 (Pa. Super. 2020) (citation omitted); see also Lear, 325 A.3d at 560; Walker, 331 A.3d at 46. | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Cookgreen2 sentences2022Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 955 (Pa. 2018); Commonwealth v. Cook, 676 A.2d 639, 645 (Pa. 1996) (“Any delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time[.]”). 2017Id. at 374 , 676 A.2d at 645 . | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2025This Court has recently reiterated that “[e]xcludable time includes, but is not limited to, delays caused by . . . defense unavailability or continuance requests[.]” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 339 A.3d 1030, 1035 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citations omitted); see also Walker, 331 A.3d at 46-47 (stating that “any delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time, even if the defendant was prepared to go to trial at an earlier date” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228, 237 (Pa. Super. 2025This Court has recently reiterated that “[e]xcludable time includes, but is not limited to, delays caused by . . . defense unavailability or continuance requests[.]” Commonwealth v. Robinson, 339 A.3d 1030 , 1035 (Pa. Super. 2025) (citations omitted); see also Walker, 331 A.3d at 46-47 (stating that “any delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time, even if the defendant was prepared to go to trial at an earlier date” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Commonwealth v. Armstrong, 74 A.3d 228, 237 (Pa. Super | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Barbour, D., Aplt.green1 sentence2022Commonwealth v. Barbour, 189 A.3d 944, 955 (Pa. 2018); Commonwealth v. Cook, 676 A.2d 639, 645 (Pa. 1996) (“Any delay caused by the need to reschedule a trial because of a continuance attributable to the defense constitutes excludable time[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1996Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 899 (1982). 1996Commonwealth v. Robinson, 498 Pa. 379, 386 , 446 A.2d 895, 899 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||