Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Karetny

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 27, 2003PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.:

¶ 1 Defendants were charged with 49 different counts because they allegedly continued to operate a nightclub on Pier 34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia, knowing that the pier was in imminent danger of collapsing. It did collapse, killing three people and injuring many others. The trial court granted a motion to quash the charge of risking a catastrophe while allowing the charge oí failing to prevent a catastrophe and many others to continue. The Commonwealth appeals.

¶ 2 The defendants move to quash the appeal, and also claim that the trial judge was correct in…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  2. Commonwealth v. CampanaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. Commonwealth v. LassiterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1998
  4. Commonwealth v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1942
  5. Commonwealth v. BershadSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. KaretnySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  2. Com. v. Wanko, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2016
  3. Commonwealth v. KaretnySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API