Commonwealth v. Runion

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that in absence of statutory definition, court is compelled to rely on definitions provided under Statutory Construction Act
• stating that in absence of statutory definition, court is compelled to rely on definitions provided under Statutory Construction Act
• because Crimes Code did not further define term “person” for ascertaining who might be considered a victim for purposes of restitution, construction was governed by the Statutory Construction Act, which did define “person”
• victim’s medical expenses paid by public assistance for which victim as recipient of entitlement benefits was under no obligation to repay the Department of Public Welfare
• pre-revision case inviting legislature to expand the meaning of the term “victim”
• “[U]nless or until the legislature enacts language to the contrary, we must find that the Department of Public Welfare, as a Commonwealth entity, is expressly excluded from the definition of a ‘person,’ and as such may not be considered a victim under 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).