Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Hartman

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1956No. Appeal, No. 77PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Pee Cueiam,

Albert D. Hartman was convicted of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The Trial Court ordered a new trial. The Commonwealth appealed to the Superior Court which reversed the order. This Court granted an allocatur. “At most, appeals by thé Commonwealth are sanctioned only where the ruling is against the Commonwealth on pure questions of law and no issues of fact are involved.” (Com. v. Dolan, 155 Pa. Superior Ct. 453, 455.) It is evident that the appeal to the Superior Court was one based *463on an admixture of law and fact and that, therefore, the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DolanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  2. Commonwealth v. DellceseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TabbSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1965
  2. People v. MertzNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  3. Commonwealth v. BlevinsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. WronaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  5. Commonwealth v. MeltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1962

37 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