Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 10/3/1973
Commonwealth v. Bowden
Citations
- 456 Pa. 278
- 309 A.2d 714
- 1973 Pa. LEXIS 723
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- 30 limit on modification of orders by trial court provided in 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 5505 does not apply to interlocutory orders
- 30 limit on modification of orders by trial court provided in 42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. 5505 does not apply to interlocutory orders
- element of malice necessary to support a second-degree murder conviction would not be implied from the defendant’s act of injecting the decedent, a fellow drug addict, with heroin because although heroin is a dangerous drug, its reaction does not generally cause death
- element of malice necessary to support a second-degree murder conviction would not be implied from the defendant's act of injecting the decedent, a fellow drug addict, with heroin because although heroin is a dangerous drug, its reaction does not generally cause death
- heroin procurer charged with murder in the second degree
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Eoberts, Jones
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
54 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. AaronMichigan Supreme Court· 1980-11-24· cited 413×
- Commonwealth v. HardcastleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-10· cited 233×
- Commonwealth v. O'SEAROSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-01-29· cited 219×
- People v. BurroughsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1984-04-19· cited 183×
- Commonwealth v. MatchettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1982-06-14· cited 157×
- Commonwealth v. BoydSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-03-18· cited 128×
- Commonwealth v. JamesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-05-29· cited 99×
- Commonwealth v. CatalinaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1990-07-03· cited 97×
- Commonwealth v. LudwigSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-05-19· cited 94×
- Minnesota Fire & Casualty Co. v. GreenfieldSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-08-19· cited 91×
- Fisher and Utley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2001-12-17· cited 83×
- Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-05-13· cited 80×
- Commonwealth v. GriffinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-01-28· cited 72×
- Commonwealth v. DuffeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-10-14· cited 69×
- Commonwealth v. MeredithSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-07-03· cited 66×
- Commonwealth v. KakhankhamSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-10-28· cited 64×
- Commonwealth v. GardnerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-07-03· cited 56×
- Commonwealth v. NichyporMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1994-12-20· cited 52×
- Commonwealth v. CayeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-11-26· cited 48×
- Commonwealth v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-04-23· cited 45×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. PhillipsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1966-05-23· cited 272×
- People v. SatchellCalifornia Supreme Court· 1971-11-04· cited 171×
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court· 1965-10-22· cited 85×
- Commonwealth v. MeltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1961-03-13· cited 79×
- Commonwealth v. TyrrellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1961-11-14· cited 59×
- Commonwealth v. BuzardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1950-11-13· cited 56×
- Commonwealth v. DorazioSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1950-06-26· cited 54×
- Commonwealth v. BurtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-03-16· cited 47×
- Commonwealth v. MacKleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1955-01-03· cited 34×
- People v. PinckneyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York· 1972-02-07· cited 27×
- Commonwealth v. DivomteSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1919-01-04· cited 25×
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.