Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Coleman

Citations

  • 341 Pa. Super. 160
  • 491 A.2d 200
  • 1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 6755

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that Commonwealth’s interlocutory appeal did not violate Rule 600 when the Commonwealth had a right to appeal that would be moot after trial and there was no evidence that the Commonwealth took the appeal as a delay tactic
  • holding that Commonwealth's interlocutory appeal did not violate Rule 600 when the Commonwealth had a right to appeal that would be moot after trial and there was no evidence that the Commonwealth took the appeal as a delay tactic
  • finding that Commonwealth’s unsuccessful two-year interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tolled the speedy trial rule time, when such appeal was taken for tactical reasons and not for delay
  • finding Commonwealth’s unsuccessful two-year interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tolled the speedy trial rule time, when such appeal was taken for tactical reasons and not for delay
  • finding Commonwealth’s unsuccessful two-year interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania tolled the speedy trial rule time, when such appeal was taken for tactical reasons and not for delay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Lipez, Rowley, Sole

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.