Commonwealth v. Jaynes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Jaynes

292 A.2d 495, 221 Pa. Super. 302, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1519

Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 15, 1972·No. Appeal, No. 534·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A new support hearing, stenographically reported, is necessary because the court below in violation of the Act of May 1, 1907, P. L. 135, §2, as amended, 17 P.S. §1802, had refused the request of counsel for the defendant-appellant that the testimony of the hearing be transcribed. Commonwealth ex rel. Hollinger v. Shaeffer, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 175 A. 2d 114 (1961). Remanded for a new hearing.

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

Opinion

Per Curiam,

A new support hearing, stenographically reported, is necessary because the court below in violation of the Act of May 1, 1907, P. L. 135, §2, as amended, 17 P.S. §1802, had refused the request of counsel for the defendant-appellant that the testimony of the hearing be transcribed. Commonwealth ex rel. Hollinger v. Shaeffer, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 175 A. 2d 114 (1961). Remanded for a new hearing.

Commonwealth v. Jaynes, 292 A.2d 495, 221 Pa. Super. 302, 1972 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1519 (Pa. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

292 A.2d 495 (Commonwealth v. Jaynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related