Loading…

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Commonwealth v. Dill

224 Pa. Super. 160 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1973

Full text

Commonwealth v. Dill

Opinions in this case

Majority
Dissent — Hoffman

Opinion per Curiam, The six Judges who beard and decided this appeal being equally divided, tbe judgment of sentence is affirmed.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Cercone, Hoffman, Spaulding
Cluster ID: 6419535

Citations

224 Pa. Super. 160
1973 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1871
303 A.2d 50

Cited by

Commonwealth v. Conti
Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Sep 22, 1975

Parentheticals

affirmance by an equally divided court, Hoffman, J., dissenting
Commonwealth v. Conti

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Commonwealth v. Dill — freecase.ai