607 Pa. 324
6 A.3d 499
Decided October 14, 2010
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · decided 2010-10-14
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2012
7 state decisions
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
“Did the Superior Court err in removing the cost of employing county detectives and assistant district attorneys from the trial court’s discretion to impose prosecution expenses on a convicted offender?”
quoted by 2 later decisions, including Commonwealth v. Garzone, Commonwealth v. Garzone
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2010-10-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1ORDER
¶2AND NOW, this 14th day of October 2010, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as phrased by Petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court err in removing the cost of employing county detectives and assistant district attorneys from the trial court’s discretion to impose prosecution expenses on a convicted offender?
¶3The Petition of Respondent Gerald Gar-zone seeking consolidation of his action with that of his brother and Co-Respondent, Louis Garzone, is also GRANTED.