Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Viglione

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 29, 2004PublishedCited by 27 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY FORD ELLIOTT, J.:

¶ 1 We granted en banc review to determine whether the law of the case doctrine precludes our consideration of appellant’s double jeopardy claim. Having concluded that an exception to that doctrine allows our review, we nonetheless find no merit to the claim. We therefore affirm appellant’s judgment of sentence for driving with license suspended. In order to reach that result, however, we must address and surmount several procedural roadblocks along the way.

¶ 2 A summary of the facts and procedure follows. The complainant, Eric Dorsch, who operates a wrecker as…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Commonwealth v. GrantSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Arizona v. RumseySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. Commonwealth v. StarrSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Price, Warden v. VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 2003

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. O'BidosSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  2. In Re Private Criminal Complaint of WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  3. Commonwealth v. SpuckSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  4. In Re ColletteSupreme Court of Vermont · 2008
  5. George v. EllisSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

22 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