Commonwealth v. Derhammer

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that, as long as the crime charged is substantially described in the statute referenced in the criminal information, a technical defect such as a citation to a criminal provision which has since been superseded by a similar one is “not necessarily dispositive”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Derhammer, J., Aplt.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-11-22· cited 59×
• Commonwealth v. Ciccone
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-12-13· cited 32×

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Norton v. Shelby County
  Supreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 712×
• Lemon v. Kurtzman
  Supreme Court· 1973-04-02· cited 591×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-09-25· cited 383×
• Commonwealth v. Williams
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-06-30· cited 255×
• Commonwealth v. Neiman
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-12-16· cited 231×
• Commonwealth v. Howe
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-01-26· cited 90×
• Com., Dept. of Ed. v. First School
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-02-28· cited 45×
• Matter of Dandridge
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-05-13· cited 30×
• Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Stotelmyer, D.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-02-17· cited 14×
• Scranton City v. Rose
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1915-07-21· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Wilson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-11-21· cited 12×
• Keystone State Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Ridley Park Borough
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1905-10-09· cited 7×
• Heilig Estate
  Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1979-01-30· cited 4×
• Commonwealth v. Derhammer, J., Pet
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-05-26· cited 1×