green
Positive treatment
Trending · 196 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.0 score
“oncise tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no oncise tatement at all. the court's review and legal analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues raised.”
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2011
2018
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
US Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Sheppard, G.
oncise tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no oncise tatement at all. the court's review and legal analysis can be fatally impaired when the court has to guess at the issues raised.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Everett, J.
(2×)
See Commonwealth v. Everett, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (Table).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Lucas, D.
See Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2010) (affirming judgment of sentence for aggravated assault where defendant punched victim one time in head while victim was not looking, and victim was knocked unconscious), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Rohrbach, R.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining general rule that issues not raised in concise statement will be deemed waived for review; concise statement must properly specify error to be addressed on appeal). -6- J-S28037-22 Commonwealth v. Barndt, 74 A.3d 185, 191-92 (Pa.Super. 2013)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Staples, R.
See Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598, 603 (Pa. Super. 2010) (affirming judgment of sentence for aggravated assault where defendant punched victim one time in head while victim was not looking, and victim was knocked unconscious), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Everett, J.
See Commonwealth v. Everett, 26 A.3d 1202 (Pa.Super. 2011) (unpublished memorandum), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Robinson, T.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining general rule that issues not raised in concise statement will be deemed waived for review; concise statement must properly specify error to be addressed on appeal). - 13 - Circulated 12/23/2020 04:18 PM Allegheny County - Department of of Court Records Criminal Division - Filings Information (OPINION) County caseID:CP-02-CR-0007055-2010(OPINION) Case Description: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. v. LNAME ROBINSON Entry, Sort By Document Official Docket Entry, Document Number A…
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Leomporra, C.
See generally Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining that court’s review and legal analysis can be fatally impaired when court has to guess at issues raised; if concise statement is too vague, court may find waiver). - 21 - J-S32026-20 Pa.R.Crim.P. 527,11 and this Court must grant him appropriate relief.
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. James, J.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining vague concise statement is functional equivalent of no statement at all; failure to specify claim of error in concise statement constitutes waiver on appeal). -9- J-S40029-20 cert. denied, 562 U.S. 857 , 131 S.Ct. 127 , 178 L.Ed.2d 77 (2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “[A] discretionary ruling cannot be overturned simply because a reviewing court disagrees with the trial court’s conclusion.” Commonwealth v. O’Brien, 836 A.2d 966, 968 (Pa.Super. …
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Cain, G., Jr.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (explaining vague concise statement is functional equivalent of no statement at all; failure to specify claim of error in concise statement constitutes waiver on appeal). - 10 - J-A20032-19 issue; proffered evidence was merely speculative and had little to no probative value).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Bohn, A.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410 (Pa.Super. 2011), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011) (reiterating general rule that issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived on appeal; concise statement must be specific enough for trial court to identify and address issues appellant wants to raise on appeal).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Carroll, S.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 416 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (citations omitted) (“[T]he [trier] of fact while passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ephault, B.
See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a). -3- J-S34042-17 a denial of a continuance, the appellate court must have regard for the orderly administration of justice[.]” Id. (citation omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Scott, D.
See Commonwealth v. Burton, 2 A.3d 598, 605 (Pa. Super. 2010) (en banc), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (Roche “does not comport with our holding herein.”).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Kulp, J.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 4151 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Prosceno, J. v. Devry University
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (stating that where concise statement is too vague, court may find waiver).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Fincham, T.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[I]f a concise statement is too vague, a court may find waiver.”), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Wetzel, L.
See Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011) (“[I]f a concise statement is too vague, the court may find waiver.”), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
cited
Cited "see"
Com. v. Ledford, W.
Commonwealth v. Mayfield, 585 A.2d 1069, 1071 (Pa. Super. 1991) (en banc) (emphases added); accord Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 421 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011).
discussed
Cited "see"
Com. v. Morgenstern, Jr., J.
See -5- J-A03045-14 Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415-16 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) ( on appeal waived where he failed to specify claims in his Rule 1925(b) statement); see also Commonwealth v. Castillo, 888 A.2d 775, 776, 780 (Pa. 2005) (reaffirming bright-line waiver rule for Rule 1925 established in Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998), and stating that any issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived.).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Hernandez, J.
See also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. -4- J-A14003-20 2011) (“The Rule 1925(b) statement must be ‘specific enough for the trial court to identify and address the issue an appellant wishes to raise on appeal.’”) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Sachette, C.
Commonwealth v. Gibbs, 981 A.2d 274, 281 (Pa. Super. 2009), appeal denied, 3 A.3d 670 (Pa. 2010); see also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (noting that a Rule 1925(b) statement “must be specific enough for the trial court to identify and address the issue [an appellant] wishe[s] to raise on appeal”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Reddy, M.
See Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398 , 409–10 (Pa. Super. 2008); see also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa. Super. 2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa. 2011) (“[A] [c]oncise [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Bradley
See also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa.Super.2011) (“[T]he Rule 1925(b) statement must be ‘specific enough for the trial court to identify and address the issue [an appellant] wishe[s] to raise on appeal.’ ”) (citation omitted), appeal denied, 613 Pa. 642 , 32 A.3d 1275 (2011).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Johnson
See also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa.Super.2011) (stating “the Rule 1925(b) statement must be ‘specific enough for the trial court to identify and address the issue [an appellant] wishe[s] to raise on appeal[ ]’ ”) (citation omitted), appeal denied, — Pa. -, 32 A.3d 1275 (2011); Commonwealth v. Reeves, 907 A.2d 1, 2 (Pa.Super.2006) (stating “[w]hen a court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review[]”), appeal denied, 591 Pa. 712 , 919 A.2d 956 (2007).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth v. Garvin
See Commonwealth v. Rolan, 964 A.2d 398, 409-10 (Pa.Super.2008); see also Commonwealth v. Hansley, 24 A.3d 410, 415 (Pa.Super.2011), appeal denied, 32 A.3d 1275 (Pa.2011) ("[A] [cjoncise [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
COM.
v.
GARDNER.
v.
GARDNER.
271 MAL (2011).
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 10, 2011.
32 A.3d 1275
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (1)
Disposition of Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied.