Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1/22/2016

Commonwealth v. Schultz

Citations

133 A.3d 294
2016 Pa. Super. 12
2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 30
2016 WL 285506

How courts have described this case

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

noting that Commonwealth Court decisions are not binding on us but may serve as persuasive authority
noting that Commonwealth Court decisions are not binding on us but may serve as persuasive authority
concluding claim would be irreparably lost if review were postponed until trial “in light of the privilege issues in play and because there is no effective mechanism” for raising the claim on direct appeal
stating, “[t]he current Pennsylvania Constitution was amended to allow for the frequent use of criminal informations. Hence, the typical manner of instituting a criminal prosecution is no longer via a grand jury indictment”
“In the instant case, the order is separable from the main action because it does not require a merits analysis of the underlying criminal allegations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bowes, Jenkins, Platt

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

50 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.