239 Pa. Super. 273 - Commonwealth v. Lloyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Commonwealth v. Collemaeine, supra, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that ‘a defendant is entitled to notice of presentment of his case to the grand jury if the presentment is to a grand jury other than the next term after the defendant’s preliminary hearing.’ Commonwealth v. Johnson, 440 Pa. 342, 353 , 269 A.2d 752, 758 (1970). The reason for not requiring notice if the defendant is being bound over to the next term is that it is general practice for committing magistrates and judges to bind defendants over to the next term of grand jury. Commonwealth v. Cardonick, 448 Pa. 322 , 292 A.2d 402 (1972); Commonwealth v. Rosenfield, 220 Pa.Super. 105 , 283 A.2d 870 (1971), aff’d, 448 Pa. 531 , 292 A.2d 323 (1972). Under such circumstances, the date of presentment is ‘readily ascertainable.’ Commonwealth v. Sullivan, 446 Pa. 419, 432 , 286 A.2d 898, 902 (1971).” “Under the circumstances, we hold that appellant was not entitled to notice that his case would be presented to the January Grand Jury. Appellant was represented by counsel who knew, or should have known, that appellant’s case could not be presented to the December Grand Jury. Because appellant’s case was submitted to the next term of grand jury, the first one possible, he was not entitled to be notified. Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra.” Commonwealth v. Lloyd, 239 Pa.Super. 273, 275-76 , 361 A.2d 430 (1976).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Cartagena