Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Mayfield

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 8, 1976No. 475PublishedCited by 277 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROBERTS, Justice.

This case presents the issue whether Pa.R.Crim.P. 1100(c) 1 ever permits a trial court to grant a timely application by the prosecution to extend the prescribed time for trial on the sole ground that the court cannot provide trial within the prescribed period. Rule 1100(c) provides that applications by the Commonwealth attorney to extend time “shall be granted only if trial cannot be commenced within the prescribed period despite due diligence by the Commonwealth.” 2 The Superior Court concluded that this provision does not permit extensions predicated…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barker v. WingoSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Dickey v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Strunk v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1972
  5. Commonwealth v. DiPasqualeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1968

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

3Cited by277 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. LawsonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Commonwealth v. EhredtSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  3. Commonwealth v. BradySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1986
  4. Commonwealth v. ColemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  5. Commonwealth v. MaxwellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984

272 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