Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 12/2/1977

Commonwealth v. Porter

Citations

380 A.2d 812
251 Pa. Super. 346
1977 Pa. Super. LEXIS 2942

How courts have described this case

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

Both our Supreme Court and this Court previously have employed the Comments in interpreting the Rules
Both our Supreme Court and this Court previously have employed the Comments in interpreting the Rules
defendant’s incarceration in county prison if unknown could have been determined by due diligence
because the Commonwealth waited eight weeks, without cause, before filing a writ for accused’s removal from federal custody it cannot claim as an excuse under Rule 1100 that six to eight weeks would have elapsed in obtaining the accused even if it had diligently filed the writ
because the Commonwealth waited eight weeks, without cause, before filing a writ for accused's removal from federal custody it cannot claim as an excuse under Rule 1100 that six to eight weeks would have elapsed in obtaining the accused even if it had diligently filed the writ

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Cercone, Price, Van Voort Spaeth

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite 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.