Commonwealth v. Hatfield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Hatfield

628 A.2d 840, 534 Pa. 255, 1993 Pa. LEXIS 174

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided August 3, 1993·No. No. 93 M.D. Appeal Docket 1991·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 1993, Appellant’s Application for Reargument is granted.

NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, J., dissent. LARSEN and McDERMOTT, JJ., did not participate in the decision of this matter.

[256]*256 ORDER

This court having been advised that Appellee, Steven Hatfield, is deceased, the Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is GRANTED and the Application to Proceed with Reargument pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 502(a) and Petition to Vacate Orders Below are DENIED.

LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of August, 1993, Appellant’s Application for Reargument is granted.

NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, J., dissent. LARSEN and McDERMOTT, JJ., did not participate in the decision of this matter.

[256]*256 ORDER

This court having been advised that Appellee, Steven Hatfield, is deceased, the Motion to Dismiss for Mootness is GRANTED and the Application to Proceed with Reargument pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 502(a) and Petition to Vacate Orders Below are DENIED.

LARSEN, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Commonwealth v. Hatfield, 628 A.2d 840, 534 Pa. 255, 1993 Pa. LEXIS 174 (Pa. 1993).

Pincite

628 A.2d 840 (Commonwealth v. Hatfield) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related