Commonwealth v. Miller

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “where a blood draw is conducted for medical purposes, and the results of the blood test are obtained after proper execution of a search warrant, the results of the blood draw are admissible in the prosecution of a DUI defendant.”
• “where a blood draw is conducted for medical purposes, and the results of the blood test are obtained after proper execution of a search warrant, the results of the blood draw are admissible in the prosecution of a DUI defendant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. March
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-01-26· cited 7×
• Com. v. Persico, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-07-29

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Schmerber v. California
  Supreme Court· 1966-06-20· cited 6,067×
• Ferguson v. City of Charleston
  Supreme Court· 2001-03-21· cited 523×
• Commonwealth v. Nester
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-03-25· cited 199×
• Commonwealth v. Kohl
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1992-09-16· cited 149×
• United States v. Thomas P. Attson
  Ninth Circuit· 1990-04-19· cited 116×
• Commonwealth v. Riedel
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1994-12-01· cited 64×
• Commonwealth v. Shaw
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2001-04-16· cited 61×
• United States v. Daniel G. Chapel
  Ninth Circuit· 1995-05-26· cited 44×
• Commonwealth v. West
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-10-10· cited 44×
• Commonwealth v. Keller
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2003-05-05· cited 44×
• United States v. Eagle
  Eighth Circuit· 2007-08-29· cited 40×
• United States v. Phillip Berry
  Sixth Circuit· 1989-02-01· cited 21×
• Commonwealth v. Barton
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-02-27· cited 16×
• Commonwealth v. Lehman
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2004-08-20· cited 8×