Commonwealth v. Yost

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a continuance is an appropriate remedy where the undisclosed evidence is otherwise admissible and the defendant’s only prejudice is surprise

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Smith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-08-06· cited 94×
• Commonwealth v. Gordon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-06-30· cited 74×
• Commonwealth v. Redmond
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-05-21· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. Zimmerman
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1990-03-02· cited 13×
• Commonwealth v. Leach
  Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas· 1988-06-10· cited 1×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-07-01· cited 817×
• Commonwealth v. Rodgers
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1977-04-28· cited 127×
• Commonwealth v. Bey
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-01-05· cited 44×
• Commonwealth v. Parente
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-01-19· cited 37×
• Commonwealth v. Johnson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-01-07· cited 29×
• Commonwealth v. Jenkins
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1978-01-26· cited 28×
• Commonwealth v. Melendez
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-03-30· cited 20×
• Commonwealth v. Brocco
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1979-01-26· cited 11×