Commonwealth v. Smith

How courts have described this case

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

• Incarceration is not by itself sufficient to render defendant unavailable for trial for purposes of Rule 1100(d)
• Incarceration is not by itself sufficient to render defendant unavailable for trial for purposes of Rule 1100(d)
• where Commonwealth made no attempt to secure defendant while statute of limitations ran, requiring charges be dismissed

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Colon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-07-29· cited 38×
• Commonwealth v. Woods
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1995-08-16· cited 16×
• Commonwealth v. Snyder
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-07-25· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Heath
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1981-06-19· cited 10×
• Commonwealth v. Pichini
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-12-30· cited 6×
• Commonwealth v. Widener
  York County Court of Common Pleas· 1984-01-19

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Kovacs
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-10-06· cited 44×
• Commonwealth v. McCafferty
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1976-09-27· cited 40×
• Commonwealth v. Richbourgh
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-02-18· cited 31×
• Commonwealth v. Warman
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-11-08· cited 30×