Commonwealth v. Knecht, E. & Weaver, C., Pets
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Com. v. Ghimirey, J. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024)
- Com. v. Terwilliger, S. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019)
- Com. v. Brown, R. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019)
- Com. v. Smith, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025)
- Com. v. Mohacsi, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)
- Com. v. Slack, A. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2020)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 359 MAL 2018
:
Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Superior Court :
v. :
: :
GARY WILLIAM MILLER, :
:
Petitioner :
: : :
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : No. 365 MAL 2018
:
Respondent : Petition for Allowance of Appeal from
: the Order of the Superior Court :
v. :
: :
EDWIN CLAIR KNECHT, :
:
Petitioner :
:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, :
:
Respondent :
: :
v. :
: :
CHARLES BLAIR WEAVER, :
:
Petitioner :
DISSENTING STATEMENT JUSTICE WECHT FILED: December 20, 2018
The instant Petition for Allowance of Appeal raises legal issues that implicate the decision that the Supreme Court of the United States issued in Birchfield v. North Dakota, __ U.S. __, 136 S.Ct. 2160 (2016). Because this Court has not yet addressed the impact of Birchfield upon the law of this Commonwealth, we have no binding precedent against which to test the merits of these issues, or by which to evaluate lower courts’ analyses of the legal questions that arise in the wake of Birchfield.
Currently pending before this Court are several cases that necessitate our consideration of Birchfield. The legal landscape following Birchfield remains substantively unsettled, nearly any claim that implicates that decision consequently remains at least potentially viable, and this Court has elected to consider several legal issues emanating from the Birchfield decision. Under these circumstances, I would not deny allocatur in this case or any other that depends in whole or in part upon an analysis of Birchfield. We are ill-advised conclusively to foreclose the possibility of further review until such time as this Court can provide a clear, definitive, and precedential articulation of what Birchfield means for Pennsylvania law.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of allocatur, as I would hold this petition in abeyance pending further developments.
Justice Donohue joins this dissenting statement.
[359 MAL 2018; 365 MAL 2018] - 2
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.