Legal Opinion · Dissent

Commonwealth v. Hinton

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided August 24, 1979No. 906Published

1DissentSpaeth, Judge

Rather than affirming the judgment of sentence, as does the majority, I should remand for further proceedings.

The majority agrees, and in any event it is settled, that the Commonwealth had the burden of proving that it exercised due diligence in trying to find appellant. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 472 Pa. 553, 372 A.2d 826 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kovacs, 250 Pa.Super. 66, 378 A.2d 455 (1977). The majority states, however, that “due diligence” means “only reasonable efforts.” At 58. I find this unhelpful, for two reasons. If “only reasonable efforts” is offered as a synonym for “due diligence”,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. MitchellSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. Greenville Business Men's Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  3. Speyer, Inc. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1968
  4. Commonwealth v. KovacsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. Commonwealth v. GarnettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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