Commonwealth v. Hack, R.

How courts have described this case

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

• “In this case, because nothing in the record suggests the constitutional violation was not redressable in a new trial, the district court apparently abused its discretion.”
• generally should be reserved for cases in which the “constitutional violation ... cannot be remedied by another trial, or other exceptional circumstances exist such that the holding of a new trial would be unjust”
• district court issued writ for failure by the State to retry petitioner within 90 days; remanded for findings by the district court as to whether the writ was conditional
• “[F]ederal courts should abstain from the exercise of . . . jurisdiction if the issues raised . . . may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other [available] state procedures.”
• “[F]ederal courts should abstain from the exercise of . . . jurisdiction if the issues raised . . . may be resolved either by trial on the merits in the state court or by other [available] state procedures.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).