Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 9/28/2005
Commonwealth v. Padilla
Citations
- 885 A.2d 994
- 2005 Pa. Super. 332
- 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3522
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 Commonwealth proves the notice element of ICC where defendant has actual notice of the PFA order or the constructive equivalent
- holding that verbal notice by a police officer over the telephone of the PFA order, what it precluded, and the consequences for violating the order, provided adequate notice of the order to sustain a conviction for ICC
- finding that the notice requirement for ICC was satisfied by a police officer’s phone call to the defendant informing him of the PFA order
- noting that intent of PFA statute could not be implemented if enforcement were delayed until personal service was achieved
- affirming -4- J-S14028-21 ICC conviction where notice requirement satisfied by phone call from police officer to defendant informing defendant of PFA
- Commonwealth proves notice element of indirect criminal contempt where defendant has actual notice of PFA order or constructive equivalent
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Gantman, Montemuro, Olszewski
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Commonwealth v. BrumbaughSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-07-31· cited 119×
- Commonwealth v. MooreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-07-15· cited 28×
- Commonwealth v. StatonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-02-21· cited 22×
- Commonwealth v. MoodySupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-05-15· cited 19×
- Com. v. Smith, D., Jr.Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-12-29· cited 12×
- Commonwealth v. Stevenson, V., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-09-29
- Urbanek v. NolanFranklin County Court of Common Pleas· 2008-10-01
Cites
4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.