Commonwealth v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he overt act requirement does not require proximity or the immediate ability to carry out the threat.”
• in case challenging sufficiency of Section 302 warrant, necessity of \overt act\ in further of threat satisfied by appellant removing baton and smashing car window, as well as kicking dashboard, thrusting seat back, and turning off car in traffic

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Smerconish
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-03-24· cited 27×
• Com. v. Fleet, S.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-04-16
• In Re: B. W., Appeal of: Blair Dept Human Services
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2021-05-18

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Boczkowski
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-03-23· cited 231×
• Commonwealth v. Galendez
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-08-24· cited 77×
• In re J.M.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-03-25· cited 46×
• In re R.D.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-09-10· cited 32×
• In re Woodside
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-08-28· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. Culp
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1988-09-26· cited 19×
• Commonwealth v. Emmil
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-01-04· cited 5×