Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

DiJoseph Petition

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 16, 1958No. 194 Miscellaneous Docket 11PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

Per Curiam,

' A majority of the court is of the opinion that the District Attorney should not be required to make available before tidal for examination and inspection by Ethel Kravitz and her counsel photographs of fingerprints, if any, in the possession of the District Attorney. The order of the court below is amended accordingly.

Order amended; rule discharged and writ of prohibition refused.

2Cited by28 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. GockleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  2. Commonwealth v. EVANSSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1959
  3. Commonwealth v. StaffordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. MartinSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  5. Commonwealth v. CaplanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API