Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Hughes

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 14, 2009No. 177 MDA 2009Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION BY

FITZGERALD, J.:

¶ 1 I respectfully dissent from the reasoned analysis of the learned majority. The majority concludes that under the grading subsection of the forgery statute, a “cashier’s check” is an “issue of money”. Majority Op. at ¶ 15. The majority defines an “issue of money” as equivalent to an item of intrinsic monetary value that is both capable of perpetuating widespread fraud and, if forged, would actually undermine confidence in that instrument for transmitting money. Majority Op. at ¶ 14. The majority submits that a cashier’s check is not a commercial…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FithianSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  2. Commonwealth v. GoldhammerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. PantalionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2008
  4. Commonwealth v. McCoySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Commonwealth v. RyanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

10 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