Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Neitzel

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 21, 1996PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

CERCONE, President Judge Emeritus:

This is a direct appeal from the judgment of sentence 1 entered following a trial de novo at which appellant was *5convicted of violating the Game and Wildlife Code.2 We affirm.

Appellant, Kevin Neitzel, was a taxidermist at the time of his arrest, with a business address at 4100 Robbins Avenue in the City of Philadelphia. On August 19, 1994, eleven armed officers from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a search of appellant’s taxidermy shop at approximately 1:30 p.m., during appellant’s regular business…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. ChamberlainSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. United States v. EnglerCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1986
  3. United States v. William F. RayCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1973
  4. Commonwealth v. HewettSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. United States v. Kenneth A. ManningCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1986

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SitlerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  2. Commonwealth v. BorrielloCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  3. Commonwealth v. GosselinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  4. Showers v. SpanglerDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1997
  5. Commonwealth v. GillmoreSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

4 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