Commonwealth v. Bradshaw

How courts have described this case

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

• where defendant's suppression motion did not specifically challenge search and seizure which occurred incident to defendant's arrest by police, averment was lacking in specificity or particularity under Rule 581(D)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Gordon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-06-30· cited 74×
• Commonwealth v. Chew
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-01-30· cited 31×
• Commonwealth v. McDonald
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-08-05· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Quaid
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-03-17· cited 16×
• Commonwealth v. Dillon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-08-02· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Romero
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-04-19· cited 8×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Staiano v. Johns-Manville Corp.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-09-03· cited 65×
• In re S. C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-09-19· cited 40×
• Martin v. Soblotney
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-09-14· cited 39×
• Minteer v. Wolfe
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-05-28· cited 34×
• Lynch v. Hook
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-04-12· cited 26×
• Commonwealth v. Ryan
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-02-26· cited 23×
• Vend-A-Matic, Inc. v. Frankford Trust Co.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-03-12· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Menginie
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-03-31· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Iacavazzi
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-12-29· cited 12×