Commonwealth v. Frometa

How courts have described this case

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

• “ ‘When drugs are not found on the defendant’s person, the Commonwealth is required to prove constructive possession.’ ”
• tenant of multi-unit apartment building could not be found in constructive possession of drugs found in basement of building which was accessible to other tenants in building
• tenant of multi-unit apartment building could not be found in constructive possession of drugs found in basement of building which was accessible to other tenants in building

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Aviles
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-10-22· cited 22×
• Commonwealth v. Rodriguez
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-01-05· cited 13×
• Commonwealth v. Mercado
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-12-01· cited 9×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hardcastle
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-08-10· cited 233×
• Commonwealth v. MacOlino
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-12-27· cited 227×
• Commonwealth v. Mudrick
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-10· cited 170×
• Commonwealth v. Jackson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-12-18· cited 163×
• Commonwealth v. Fortune
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-04-23· cited 151×
• Commonwealth v. Samuels
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-06-24· cited 68×
• Commonwealth v. Bruner
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-10-06· cited 54×
• Commonwealth v. Brady
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-06-21· cited 47×
• Commonwealth v. Juliano
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-03-22· cited 41×
• Commonwealth v. Diaz
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-10-07· cited 8×