Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Micklos

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 28, 1996No. 1320PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, Judge:

We considered this case en banc primarily to determine whether the Commonwealth may appeal from an order of court which granted a criminal defendant’s suppression motion and concurrently dismissed all charges filed against that defendant, thereby preventing the Commonwealth from pursuing its right to appeal the adverse rulings of a suppression court. After reviewing the circumstances of this case in light of the applicable law, we conclude that the challenged Com*565monwealth appeal does not implicate principles of double jeopardy.

On April 24, 1993, at approximately 10:10 p.m.,…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Green v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. United States v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. Sanabria v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  5. Fong Foo v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1962

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. OrtegaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  2. Commonwealth v. JohonosonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Commonwealth v. PettewaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Commonwealth v. VargasSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  5. Commonwealth v. LongSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API