Commonwealth v. Fudeman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion by
Watkins, J.:
I respectfully dissent from the order of the majority quashing this appeal on the ground that it is interlocutory and that under the case of Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 389 Pa. 109, 132 A. 2d 265 (1957), it is not an appealable order.
I do not believe that the Supreme Court in the O’Brien case decided any such thing. It has always been the general rule that “unless a bill of indictment is defective on its face, when a defendant moves to quash an indictment prior to trial, and his motion is denied by the trial court, the court’s order is interlocutory and hence not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TrunkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Com. Ex Rel. Paige v. Smith, WardenSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Commonwealth v. RagoneSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1934
- Commonwealth v. KilgallenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1954
- Commonwealth v. O'BRIENSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.