Commonwealth v. Hendricks

How courts have described this case

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

• because Pennsylvania rule of criminal procedure is modeled after federal rule of criminal procedure, “our interpretation of the Pennsylvania rule is accordingly guided by reference to federal cases” interpreting federal rule
• “It [is] the court’s failure to advise counsel of its ruling prior to closing argument, not the soundness of that ruling, which violate[s] Rule 30 and prejudicially affect[s] counsel’s summation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Melvin
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-08-21· cited 419×
• Sutch, R. v. Roxborough Memorial Hospital
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2016-11-15· cited 18×
• People v. Bastin
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 1996-01-25· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Alston
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-02-11· cited 6×
• State of Idaho v. Michael Joseph Amelia
  Idaho Court of Appeals· 2007-03-22· cited 2×
• Com. v. Orie Melvin, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2014-08-21

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• United States v. Wander
  Third Circuit· 1979-06-27· cited 110×
• United States v. Frank T. McCown United States of America v. Gary Lee Barnes, United States of America v. Gary Leslie Barnes
  Ninth Circuit· 1983-08-02· cited 105×
• Ross v. United States
  Sixth Circuit· 1950-02-14· cited 43×
• Cambanis v. Nationwide Insurance
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-10-11· cited 39×
• Burns v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-06-09· cited 34×
• Louise A. Wright v. United States
  Ninth Circuit· 1964-12-22· cited 29×
• United States v. Kenneth Wayne Harvill
  Ninth Circuit· 1974-07-15· cited 24×
• Michigan Bank v. Steensen
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-12-14· cited 21×