Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 7/19/1985

Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

496 A.2d 31
344 Pa. Super. 108
1985 Pa. Super. LEXIS 7562

How courts have described this case

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

distinguishing the merger doctrine from the double jeopardy proscription and tracing the history and development of the doctrine
distinguishing the merger doctrine from the double jeopardy proscription and tracing the history and development of the doctrine
discussing various tests for determining whether two offenses merge for sentencing
“This case was certified to the Court en banc to address problems arising under the doctrine of merger of offenses for sentencing.”
aggravated assault of police officer and resisting arrest did not merge under former principal injury test
treating merger and double jeopardy questions separately

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Spaeth, Wickersham, Brosky, Cirillo, Beck, Popovich, Hester

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

45 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

114 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.