Commonwealth v. Kurtz
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1DissentBrosky, Judge
I respectfully dissent.
Rule 1100(c)(1) provides that:
At any time prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for an order extending the time for the commencement of trial.1
The issue before this Court is the interpretation of the words “may apply to the court.” The significance of whether appellee did apply to the court in a timely fashion lies in the fact that: “Failure to file a timely extension petition precludes the granting of an extension because the Commonwealth is not permitted to file a petition nunc pro…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. SheltonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1976
- Commonwealth v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
- Commonwealth v. WhartonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
- Commonwealth v. BythewaySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
- Commonwealth v. RyanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.