Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2/20/2018

Commonwealth v. Murphy

Citations

180 A.3d 402

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that because our Supreme Court has not held that Muniz applies retroactively, Murphy cannot rely on Muniz to meet the third timeliness exception
recognizing that to invoke the timeliness exception at subsection (iii), the petitioner must demonstrate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that Muniz applies retroactively
recognizing that to invoke the timeliness exception at subsection (iii), the petitioner must demonstrate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has held that Muniz applies retroactively
holding that our Supreme Court has not yet declared that Muniz applies retroactively in order to satisfy Section 9545(b)(1)(iii)
holding that Muniz cannot satisfy the timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii) because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not held that Muniz applies retroactively
holding that Muniz cannot satisfy the timeliness exception of section 9545(b)(1)(iii) because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not held that Muniz applies retroactively

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bender, Lazarus, Stevens

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

6 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.