Commonwealth v. Banks

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the suppression court abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s suppression motion based on issues not raised in the motion because, inter alia, “the Commonwealth had no opportunity to respond to that argument”
• concluding that the suppression court abused its discretion in granting the defendant’s suppression motion based on issues not raised in the motion because, inter alia, “the Commonwealth had no opportunity to respond to that argument”
• holding trial court abused discretion in suppressing evidence based on grounds not asserted in defendant’s motion to suppress
• holding trial court abused discretion in suppressing evidence based on grounds not asserted in defendant’s motion to suppress
• concluding defendant waived challenge to illegal detention when he did not include it in his motion to suppress or amend the motion to include the issue
• reversing the grant of suppression when the defendant argued only that officers did not have reasonable suspicion to search his residence, but the trial court determined that he had been improperly seized by police prior to the search

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Com. v. Carey, R.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-04-19· cited 40×
• Com. v. Carter, W.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-06-16· cited 7×
• Shook, A. v. Lehigh Valley Restaurant Group
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-04-04· cited 2×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Arthur
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-02-20· cited 55×
• Commonwealth v. Andre
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-03-29· cited 49×
• Commonwealth v. Whiting
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-01-31· cited 14×