Commonwealth v. Melvin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “courts have never held that [expert] -4- J-A08036-25 testimony is necessary, however, and testimony by lay witnesses has always been sufficient” to show that a weapon is a firearm
• holding evidence sufficient for unlawful restraint where there were inherently dangerous circumstances showing the defendant had placed the victim in danger of serious bodily harm
• defendant’s possession and use of an unloaded sawed-off shotgun to force the victim to drive in search of a third party was sufficient proof of inherently dangerous circumstances to support unlawful restraint conviction
• upholding unlawful restraint conviction under Section 2902(a)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Hague
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-12-31· cited 30×
• Commonwealth v. Barzyk
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-04-04· cited 30×
• Commonwealth v. Torres
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-08-13· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. McClintock
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-04-07· cited 11×
• Commonwealth v. Anderson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-02-27· cited 10×
• Commonwealth v. Dunn
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-04-14· cited 4×

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Trowbridge
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-12-14· cited 77×
• Weir by Gasper v. Estate of Ciao
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-03-15· cited 56×
• Commonwealth v. Thomas
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1989-02-01· cited 52×
• Commonwealth v. Schilling
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-12-23· cited 47×
• Commonwealth v. Bond
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-03-30· cited 6×