Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Reid

Citations

  • 77 A.3d 579
  • 621 Pa. 245
  • 2013 WL 5379383
  • 2013 Pa. LEXIS 2198

How courts have described this case

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

  • reasoning that, “an absolute identity of factual backgrounds” is not required but “a mere de minimis duplication of factual and legal issues is insufficient to establish a logical relationship”
  • reasoning that, “an absolute identity of factual backgrounds” is not required but “a mere de minimis duplication of factual and legal issues is insufficient to establish a logical relationship”
  • stressing the significance of a substantial duplication of issues of law and fact before a logical relationship can be found
  • applying earlier holding from Hude and instructing that courts considering the logical-relationship prong should look at the temporal and logical relationship among the charges to determine whether they arose from a single criminal episode
  • separate drug transactions were not same criminal episode where different evidence was required to prove defendant’s guilt in the separate cases
  • separate drug transactions were not same criminal episode where different evidence was required to prove defendant’s guilt in the separate cases

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Baer, Castille, Eakin, McCaffery, Saylor, Stevens, Todd

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

9 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.