Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Shoop

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 3, 1992No. 931PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HOFFMAN, Judge:

This is an appeal from an order granting appellee’s, James Shoop, motion challenging a temporary assignment of issuing authority and ordering that re-arrest be issued through District Court Justice LaRosa. 1 Appellant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, presents the following question:

Did the trial court err in holding that where a criminal defendant is discharged at a preliminary hearing, a subsequent preliminary hearing following rearrest must be heard by the same District Justice who discharged defendant at the initial preliminary hearing?

Appellant’s Brief at 3. For the reasons…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Liciaga v. Court of Common PleasSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  2. Riggins CaseSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
  3. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Fitzpatrick v. MirarchiSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  4. Commonwealth v. KlineSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  5. Commonwealth v. SufrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Robert Stewart v. Lynne AbrahamCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  2. Commonwealth v. BraykovichSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  3. Stewart v. AbrahamCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2001
  4. Commonwealth v. JacobsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  5. Commonwealth v. NicodemusSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993

7 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