Commonwealth v. Baroni

How courts have described this case

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

• holding discovery of standing rule of law does not constitute a fact for purposes of the newly-discovered fact exception
• holding discovery of standing rule of law does not constitute concrete fact for purposes of new-facts exception
• holding discovery of standing rule of law does not constitute a fact (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 10 - J-S26009-21 In Peterson, the Supreme Court held that PCRA counsel’s ineffectiveness may constitute a newly discovered fact for purposes of the Section 9545(b)(1
• defendant’s actual knowledge of obscure rule of law involving proper charge under corpus delicti not considered “facts” as contemplated by section 9454(b)(ii)
• defendant’s actual knowledge of obscure rule of law involving proper charge under corpus delicti not considered “facts” as contemplated by section 9454(b)(ii)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Com. v. Kennedy, S.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-12-16· cited 57×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Sullivan v. Louisiana
  Supreme Court· 1993-06-01· cited 3,512×
• Commonwealth v. Yarris
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-05-21· cited 284×
• Commonwealth v. Pursell
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-04-17· cited 250×
• Gray v. Commonwealth
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1882-11-20· cited 54×
• Commonwealth v. Reyes
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1996-07-31· cited 41×
• Commonwealth v. May
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-03-16· cited 40×
• Commonwealth v. Tallon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-06-02· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Ahlborn
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-03-06· cited 34×
• Commonwealth v. Fried
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-01-17· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Persichini
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-09-30· cited 16×