Skip to main content

Cochran v. Commonwealth

Citations

  • 69 Pa. Commw. 74
  • 450 A.2d 756
  • 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1575

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • adequate notice and non-discriminatory application are standards against which to measure vagueness challenge
  • conviction of salesperson for selling or offering to sell drug paraphernalia upheld, presumably based on contents of entire shop; under “knowing” requirement. The court noted that appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to prove the “knowing” requirement
  • conviction of salesperson for selling or offering to sell drug paraphernalia upheld, presumably based on contents of entire shop; under \knowing\ requirement. The court noted that appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence presented to prove the \knowing\ requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Crumlish, Rogers, Blatt, Craig, MacPhail

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.