Commonwealth v. Kincade

How courts have described this case

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

• ‘We decline Appellant’s invitation to read into the statute that which is not there. Proof of pecuniary loss is not required by the statute when criminal mischief is charged under [section] 3304(a)(2) as a summary offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Battiato
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-01-21· cited 17×
• Campbell v. Moore
  Third Circuit· 2004-01-14· cited 2×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-11-14· cited 1,351×
• Commonwealth v. Buehl
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-30· cited 203×
• Commonwealth v. Mayberry
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-10-16· cited 78×
• Eichenlaub v. Eichenlaub
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1985-04-04· cited 35×
• Commonwealth v. Cardona
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-07-15· cited 31×
• Commonwealth v. Adams
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-01-10· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Africa
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-10-10· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Brandt
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-05-07· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Little
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-07-09· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Shaffer
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-02-25· cited 6×