Commonwealth v. Selenski
937 A.2d 445, 594 Pa. 713
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided November 27, 2007·No. 412 MAL 2007·Published·Cited by 10 cases
Opinion
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent
v.
HUGO MARCUS SELENSKI, Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
ORDER
PER CURIAM
AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2007, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues, rephrased for clarity, are:
(1) Discuss whether the Superior Court was correct in concluding that "the Commonwealth exercised due diligence and that the circumstances occasioning the postponement were beyond the control of the Commonwealth" within the meaning of Pa.R.Crim.P. 600(G).
(2) Discuss whether the Superior Court applied the proper standard of review and the proper scope of review in reviewing the trial court's order granting Petitioner's motion to dismiss under Pa.R.Crim.P. 600.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Commonwealth v. Selenski, 937 A.2d 445, 594 Pa. 713 (Pa. 2007).
937 A.2d 445 (Commonwealth v. Selenski) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
OUM v. DOUGHERTY
E.D. Pennsylvania, 2021
Com. v. Rhodes, J.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Bauta v. Greyhound Lines, Inc
E.D. New York, 2020
Commonwealth v. Mathis, D., Aplt.
173 A.3d 699 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2017)
Com. v. Santiago, W.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Commonwealth v. Mathis
125 A.3d 780 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Rockwell v. Knott
32 Pa. D. & C.5th 157 (Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, 2013)
Commonwealth v. SELENSKI
994 A.2d 1083 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2010)