Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2/23/2011

Commonwealth v. Davis

Citations

17 A.3d 390
2011 Pa. Super. 36
2011 Pa. Super. LEXIS 45
2011 WL 664745

How courts have described this case

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

holding that identification of a suspect by using a photo array was reliable
holding that photo array was suggestive when it contained three photos, one of which was a third party already known to the witness, and the other an individual who appeared markedly different from the defendant
holding that photo array was suggestive when it contained three photos, one of which was a third party already known to the witness, and the other an individual who - 21 - J-S35038-21 appeared markedly different from the defendant
observing that possession of a controlled substance is not crimen falsi
applying the general rule that a decision lacks precedential value if it does not garner the support of a majority of the sitting judges
stating the general rule that a decision lacks precedential value if it does not garner the support of a majority of the sitting judges

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elliott, Gantman, Donohue

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.