Commonwealth v. Herman

How courts have described this case

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

• where defendant cut telephone lines to grocery store, evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 3304(a)(2)
• where defendant cut telephone lines to grocery store, evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under section 3304(a)(2)
• where defendant cut telephone lines to grocery store, evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 3304(a)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Com. v. Edwards, M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2020-02-12· cited 35×
• Com. v. Kearney, T.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2019-12-23· cited 12×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hawkins
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-09-17· cited 223×
• Commonwealth v. Brown
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-09-30· cited 42×
• Commonwealth v. Miller
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-04-22· cited 40×