Commonwealth v. Reddington

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Reddington

367 A.2d 231, 469 Pa. 597

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 17, 1976·No. No. 441·Published

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Now, this 17th day of November 1976, the Petition for Allocatur is granted. The orders entered in the Superior Court and in the trial court are both vacated, Pa.Super., 361 A.2d 760, and the record is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the district attorney’s petition filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(c) requesting an extension of time in which to commence trial, in light of our recent decisions in Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Shelton, 469 Pa. 8, 364 A.2d 694 (1976).

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Now, this 17th day of November 1976, the Petition for Allocatur is granted. The orders entered in the Superior Court and in the trial court are both vacated, Pa.Super., 361 A.2d 760, and the record is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of the district attorney’s petition filed pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(c) requesting an extension of time in which to commence trial, in light of our recent decisions in Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 469 Pa. 214, 364 A.2d 1345 (1976) and Commonwealth v. Shelton, 469 Pa. 8, 364 A.2d 694 (1976).

Commonwealth v. Reddington, 367 A.2d 231, 469 Pa. 597 (Pa. 1976).

Pincite

367 A.2d 231 (Commonwealth v. Reddington) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related