Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 11/16/1973

Commonwealth v. Moore

Citations

226 Pa. Super. 58
312 A.2d 422
1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1320

How courts have described this case

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

comparing Pennsylvania procedure to the Kentucky system discussed in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)
comparing Pennsylvania procedure to the Kentucky system discussed in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972)
trial de novo means “that the defendant’s case will in fact be tried in Common Pleas 'anew the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered.’ 2 Am.Jur.2d Admin.Law § 698 (1962)”
trial de novo means \that the defendant's case will in fact be tried in Common Pleas `anew the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered.' 2 Am.Jur.2d Admin.Law § 698 (1962)\
trial de novo means \that the defendant's case will in fact be tried in Common Pleas 'anew' the same as if it had not been heard before and as if no decision had been previously rendered.’ 2 Am.Jur.2d Admin.Law § 698 (1962)\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cercone, Wright, Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Oerconb, Spaeth

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.