Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Commonwealth v. Schaeffer
539 Pa. 272
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- Jurisdiction
- Pennsylvania
- Date
- 1994-12-30
- Topic
- general
*273 ORDER PER CURIAM. The Court being equally divided, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed. MONTEMURO, J., did not participate in the decision of these cases. NIX, C.J., and PAPADAKOS and CASTILLE, JJ., dissent and would reverse the Order of the Superior Court.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Commonwealth v. Schaeffer. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 7 opinions
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant,
v.
Paul R. SCHAEFFER, Jr., Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued January 25, 1994. Decided December 30, 1994.Paul M. Yatron, Robert A. Graci, Harrisburg, for Atty. General's Office.
Brett O. Feese, Williamsport, Marianne E. Cox, Philadelphia, Robert E. Colville, Robert L. Eberhardt, Pittsburgh, for Com.
Gaele McLaughlin Barthold, Philadelphia, for amicus curiae, Philadelphia Dist. Attorney's Office.
David M. McGlaughlin, Philadelphia, for amicus curiae, Pa. Ass'n. of Crim. Defense Lawyers.
Dennis C. McAndrews, Media, for amicus curiae, Pa. Dist. Attorney's Ass'n.
Peter T. Campana, Marc F. Lovecchio, Williamsport, for P.R. Schaeffer.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS, CAPPY, CASTILLE and MONTEMURO, JJ.
*273 ORDER
PER CURIAM.
The Court being equally divided, the order of the Superior Court is affirmed.
MONTEMURO, J., did not participate in the decision of these cases.
NIX, C.J., and PAPADAKOS and CASTILLE, JJ., dissent and would reverse the Order of the Superior Court.