Commonwealth v. Akridge

Decided June 19, 1980

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 1980-06-19

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“requirement under that rule, Commonwealth v. Akridge, 275 Pa.Super. 513 , 419 A.2d 18 (1980). In our view, such a remand for a”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 292 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Carr

“of the Commonwealth's evidentiary burden on the”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 292 Pa. Super. 137 - Commonwealth v. Carr

Relies on Commonwealth v. Ehredt · 275 Pa. Super. 513 - Commonwealth v. Akridge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-06-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Sullivan v. COM. DEPT. OF TRANSP. (1998), Blackwell v. Com., State Ethics Com'n (1989)

3 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1 *91 ORDER

PER CURIAM:

¶2 This matter comes before us on petitioner’s petition for allowance of appeal from the Superior Court’s order remanding for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether or not the Commonwealth, at two prior hearings on Commonwealth’s petitions for extension of time under Pa.R. Crim.P. 1100, had sufficient evidence to establish its “due diligence” requirement under that rule, Commonwealth v. Akridge, 275 Pa.Super.-, 419 A.2d 18 (1980).

¶3 In our view, such a remand for a “second bite” of the Commonwealth’s evidentiary burden on the “due diligence” requirement of Rule 1100 is in contradiction to the mandates we set forth in Commonwealth v. Ehredt, 485 Pa. 191, 401 A.2d 358 (1979).

¶4 We therefore grant the petition for allowance of appeal and reverse the order of the Superior Court with directions that petitioner be discharged.

LARSEN, J., dissents.