Grattan v. Altman Chevrolet Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the “successful proof of a conspiracy makes each co-conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession.”
• concluding that “[b]ecause the Commonwealth proved conspiracy, it did not need to prove [a]ppellant’s constructive possession of the drugs[,]” as the drugs in the home were attributable to appellant and his co-conspirator
• noting that circumstantial evidence may prove a conspiracy
• “successful proof of a conspiracy makes each co-conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession”
• evidence sufficient to prove appellant's guilt for PWID and conspiracy, where appellant sold drugs supplied to him by his cohort
• “[S]uccessful proof of a conspiracy makes each co- -7- J-S43010-15 conspirator fully liable for all of the drugs recovered, without the necessity of proving constructive possession.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).