Commonwealth v. King

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. King

857 A.2d 1291

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 28, 2004·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Commonwealth v. Young, 849 A.2d 1152 (Pa.2004). Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice RUSSELL M. NIGRO notes his dissent to the per curiam order as he would deny the petition.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2004, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The order of the Superior Court is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED to that court for reconsideration in light of our decision in Commonwealth v. Young, 849 A.2d 1152 (Pa.2004). Jurisdiction relinquished.

Justice RUSSELL M. NIGRO notes his dissent to the per curiam order as he would deny the petition.

Commonwealth v. King, 857 A.2d 1291 (Pa. 2004).

Pincite

857 A.2d 1291 (Commonwealth v. King) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related