Commonwealth v. Akridge, 422 A.2d 487 (Pa. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Commonwealth v. Akridge, 422 A.2d 487 (Pa. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
24 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Eisenberg (pa, 1982-11-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth, Department of Public Welfare v. Eisenberg (2×)
Pa. · 1982 · confidence medium
Appellee's due process allegation is clearly foreclosed by this Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Forbes Health System, 492 Pa. 77 , 422 A.2d 480 (1980), in which this Court held that due process does not require that physician-providers be afforded pretermination hearings. "[D]ue process [is] met by full administrative hearings accorded appellees before the Hearings and Appeals Unit of DPW." 492 Pa. at 90, 422 A.2d at 486.
discussed Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Gunn
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Abridge, 492 Pa. 90 , 422 A.2d 487 (1980) (where Commonwealth fails to present sufficient evidence to establish due diligence under Rule 1100, it is error to remand to give Commonwealth another opportunity to present sufficient evidence); Commonwealth v. Halye, 719 A.2d 763 (Pa.Super.1998) (sentencing statute found unconstitutional; remanded for resentencing without application of statute). ¶ 5 Order denying post conviction relief reversed.
cited Cited "see" Commonwealth v. Lamb
Pa. Super. Ct. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Commonwealth v. Akridge, 492 Pa. 90 , 422 A.2d 487 (1980); Commonwealth v. Carr, 292 Pa.Super. 137 , 436 A.2d 1189 (1981); Commonwealth v. Alston, 286 Pa.Super. 290 , 428 A.2d 997 (1981).
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania
v.
Rocky AKRIDGE, Petitioner
126 E.D. Misc.Dkt. 1980.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Jun 19, 1980.
422 A.2d 487
Larsen.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published

[*91] ORDER

PER CURIAM:

This matter comes before us on petitioner’s petition for allowance of appeal from the Superior Court’s order remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether or not the Commonwealth, at two prior hearings on Commonwealth’s petitions for extension of time under Pa.R. Crim.P. 1100, had sufficient evidence to establish its “due diligence” requirement under that rule, Commonwealth v. Akridge, 275 Pa.Super.-, 419 A.2d 18 (1980).

In our view, such a remand for a “second bite” of the Commonwealth’s evidentiary burden on the “due diligence” requirement of Rule 1100 is in contradiction to the mandates we set forth in Commonwealth v. Ehredt, 485 Pa. 191, 401 A.2d 358 (1979).

We therefore grant the petition for allowance of appeal and reverse the order of the Superior Court with directions that petitioner be discharged.

LARSEN, J., dissents.