Commonwealth v. Majeed

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellant lost his license to enter the house as a result of a PFA against him
• noting purpose of Pennsylvania burglary statute is to protect occupancy, possession, or ownership
• rejecting appeal of burglary conviction where appellant’s estranged wife and children, “alone, occupied the home” and appellant “[b]y his own admission . . . was living apart from” them
• “A violation of a [PFAA order] is a violation of the law, a public wrong, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.”
• “A violation of a PFA [order] is a violation of the law, a public wrong, punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.”
• even ownership of property does not provide a license or privilege to enter it where another has “exclusive possession of it”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).