· 11/21/1986
Commonwealth v. Bernhardt
Citations
- 519 A.2d 417
- 359 Pa. Super. 413
- 1986 Pa. Super. LEXIS 13044
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding exception to mootness doctrine exists where “(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance”
- holding exception to -mootness doctrine exists where ‘(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance’
- holding exception to mootness doctrine exists where `(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance'
- holding exception to mootness doctrine exists where “(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance”
- holding exception to mootness doctrine exists where “(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance”
- holding exception to mootness doctrine exists where “(1) the question involved is capable of repetition but likely to evade review, or (2) the question involved is one of public importance”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Wieand, Beck, Johnson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.