Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Haldeman

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 30, 1926No. Appeal 4PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Trexler, J.,

The defendant was charged with the violation of the fourth section of the Act of the 11th of May, 1921, P. L. 522, being the “Dog Law of 1921,” in that he kept in his possession three dogs over six months old, for which licenses were issued but which had no tags attached to their collars and upon a hearing held before a magistrate, he was summarily convicted.

An appeal was allowed to the Court of Quarter Sessions and at the hearing, the court found the defendant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

The act in question which relates to dogs, provides for the licensing of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Commonwealth ex rel. Attorney General v. SnyderSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  2. Commonwealth v. AldermanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1923
  3. Mesta Machine Co. v. Dunbar Furnace Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
  4. Bagley Co., Inc. v. CameronSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
  5. Investor's Realty Co. v. HarrisburgSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HaldemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  2. Junge's Appeal. (No. 2.)Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
  3. Kessler v. Mandel Et Ux.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1944
  4. Knowles's EstatePennsylvania Orphans' Court, Philadelphia County · 1929

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

Powered by the Exa API