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.
7 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2021 1 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. Antonucciogreen2 sentences1985While the unavailability of a witness may be a relevant factor in determining whether an extension should be granted, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365 , 381 A.2d 961 (1977), “[m]ere assertions of due diligence and unproven facts, do not establish cause for an extension under Rule 1100(c).” Commonwealth v. Antonuccio, [257] Pa.Super. [535], [537], 390 A.2d 1366, 1367 (1978). 1985While the unavailability of a witness may be a relevant factor in determining whether an extension should be granted, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365 , 381 A.2d 961 (1977), "[m]ere assertions of due diligence and unproven facts, do not establish cause for an extension under Rule 1100(c)." *207 Commonwealth v. Antonuccio, 257 Pa.Super. 535, 537 , 390 A.2d 1366, 1367 (1978). | 3 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Ehredtgreen2 sentences2021See, e.g., Ehredt, 401 A.2d at 360-61 (“Although the preponderance standard is the least burdensome standard of proof known to the law, . . . a bare statement by the Commonwealth’s attorney that several witnesses are ‘unavailable,’ without more, does not establish ‘due diligence’ within that standard.” (internal citation omitted)). [J-102-2020] - 33 discovery obligations through the date of trial in November 2016 — more than 365 days after the Commonwealth filed the complaint in January 2015 — it is evident that the Commonwealth was not prepared to proceed to trial prior to that time, and that 1980In Commonwealth v. Ehredt, supra 485 Pa. at 195 , 401 A.2d at 360-61 , the Supreme Court stated: “Although the preponderance standard is the least burdensome standard of proof known to the law, Commonwealth v. Mitchell, supra, a bare statement by the Commonwealth’s attorney that several witnesses are ‘unavailable’, without more, does not establish ‘due diligence’ within that standard. | 2 | 3 |
Kuhns v. Bruggergreen2 sentences1978Although the supreme court has imposed the higher standard in situations in which a civilian possesses a firearm, see Kuhns v. Brugger, 390 Pa. 331, 344 , 135 A.2d 395, 403 (1957); Lindh v. Protective Motor Serv. 1978Although the supreme court has imposed the higher standard in situations in which a civilian possesses a firearm, see Kuhns v. Brugger, 390 Pa. 331, 344 , 135 A.2d 395, 403 (1957); Lindh v. Protective Motor Serv. | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences1985While the unavailability of a witness may be a relevant factor in determining whether an extension should be granted, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365 , 381 A.2d 961 (1977), “[m]ere assertions of due diligence and unproven facts, do not establish cause for an extension under Rule 1100(c).” Commonwealth v. Antonuccio, [257] Pa.Super. [535], [537], 390 A.2d 1366, 1367 (1978). 1985While the unavailability of a witness may be a relevant factor in determining whether an extension should be granted, see Commonwealth v. Brown, 252 Pa.Super. 365 , 381 A.2d 961 (1977), “[m]ere assertions of due diligence and unproven facts, do not establish cause for an extension under Rule 1100(c).” Commonwealth v. Antonuccio, [257] Pa.Super. [535], [537], 390 A.2d 1366, 1367 (1978). | 3 | 1980–1985 |
Commonwealth v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences1986Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553 , 372 A.2d 826 (1977). 1986Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553 , 372 A.2d 826 (1977). | 2 | 1982–1986 |
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.