Kendrick v. DA OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an earlier Supreme Court decision interpreting the term “enterprise” from the Pennsylvania Corrupt Organizations Act (Pa. C.O.A.
• holding that the Supreme Court’s prior decision, interpreting the term “enterprise” in 11 Section 1729-A(i) was added to the Charter School Law in 1997. The specific language interpreted by the Pocono Mountain Court was added to Section 1729-A(i
• stating that “the intervenor takes the litigation as he finds it . . . and . . . must raise claims in subordination to and in recognition of the propriety of the original action . . . .”
• “this Court's interpretation of the term ‘enterprise’ [as used in the PACOA] was not a ‘new rule,’ but must be deemed to have merely explicated the meaning and scope of the term from the Pa.C.O.A.'s original enactment in 1973”
• “[a] person does not run afoul of Pennsylvania criminal law unless he violates a specific statute;” our Court’s construction of a criminal statute as not proscribing certain conduct reflects the scope of the statute at the time of its enactment
• “A person does not run afoul of Pennsylvania criminal law unless he violates a specific statute; and when this Court holds that a statute does not encompass certain conduct, we do not have a ‘choice’ in determining whether to give retroactive effect to our holding.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).