Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Commonwealth v. Hart

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 28, 2011No. 9 MAP 2010Published

1ConcurrenceJustice Saylor

While determining the breadth of the statutory concept of “luring” presents an important question, I agree with Mr. Justice Eakin that the inquiry resides outside the boundaries of the issue the Court has framed for review in this case. See Concurring & Dissenting Opinion, Op. at 556 & n.l, 28 A.3d at 912-13 & n. 1 (citing Commonwealth v. Hart, 605 Pa. 406, 990 *555A.2d 724 (2010) (per curiam)). Notably, in framing the question presented in the Order allowing the appeal, the Court already had taken substantial liberties by substantively modifying the issue originally framed by Appellant (most of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. SamuelsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  2. Commonwealth v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010
  3. Commonwealth v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API