green
Positive treatment
8.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Bell, R. v. Bell, H. & Kirk, J.
See generally Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 (Pa.Super. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006) (holding that by raising outrageous number of issues in 15-page “concise” statements, defendants deliberately circumvented meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and effectively precluded appellate review of issues they sought to raise on appeal). -4- J-S29019-23 certified as a final order (Pa.R.A.P. 341); (2) an interlocutory order as of right (Pa.R.A.P. 311); (3) an interlocutory order by permission (Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 702(b)); or (4) a coll…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ettorre, M. v. Ettorre, F.
See Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 (2006) (waiving prolix Rule 1925(b) statement where court determined that “outrageous number of issues” was deliberate attempt to circumvent purpose of Rule 1925).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hill, E. v. Clawson, J.
See Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 (2006) (waiving prolix Rule 1925(b) statement where court determined that presentation of “outrageous number of issues” was deliberate attempt to circumvent purpose of Rule 1925); see also Jiricko v. Geico Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
1400 Market St. v. Fox Funding LLC
See Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 (2006) (waiving prolix Rule 1925(b) statement (Footnote Continued Next Page) - 11 - J-A16006-15 149, 150 (Pa. Super. 1982) (“When issues are not properly raised and developed in briefs, and when the briefs are wholly inadequate to present specific issues for review, a court will not consider the merits thereof.”) (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited "see"
Grow Co., Inc. v. Chokshi
See Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co., Inc., 371 N.J.Super. 349, 356-57 , 853 A. 2d 298 (App.Div.2004) (recognizing that the denial of summary judgment "is not subject to the law of the case doctrine because it decides nothing and merely reserves issues for future disposition"), aff'd, 184 N.J. 415 , 877 A. 2d 1247 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1042 , 163 L.Ed. 2d 857 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see"
Republic of Colombia v. Diageo North America Inc.
See European Community v. Japan Tobacco, Inc. (hereinafter, “Amazonas”), 186 F.Supp.2d 231, 243 (E.D.N.Y.2002) (Garaufis, J.), aff'd in part and rev’d in part sub nom., European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc. (hereinafter, “European Community I”), 355 F.3d 123 (2d Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated and remanded, 544 U.S. 1012 , 125 S.Ct. 1968 , 161 L.Ed.2d 845 (2005), on reconsideration following remand, 424 F.3d 175 (2d Cir.2005) (hereinafter, “European Community II”), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1045 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Velasquez, L. v. Miranda, L.
(2×)
See also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa.Super. 2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1048 , 163 L.Ed.2d 858 (2006) (stating: “By raising an outrageous number of issues, the Defendants have deliberately circumvented the meaning and purpose of Rule 1925(b) and have thereby effectively precluded appellate review of the issues they now seek to raise”). “[A] [c]oncise [s]tatement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent to no [c]oncise [s]tatement at all.” Id. at 400.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Young, R. v. Young, K.
See Pa.R.A.P. 2101, 2119(a)-(c); Krauss, supra at 584 ; see also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 402 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Com. v. Pennington, N.
Co., 947 A.2d 206, 210 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 958 A.2d 1048 (Pa. 2008) (finding waiver appropriate remedy where appellant filed five-page incoherent statement of errors); see also Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394, 401 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 880 A.2d 1239 (Pa. 2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 (2006).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Carrier Corporation v. Outokumpu Oyj
See, e.g., Empagran S.A. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche, Ltd., 417 F.3d 1267, 1268-69 (D.C.Cir.2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1043 , 163 L.Ed.2d 857 (2006); United States v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672, 677-79 (9th Cir.2004); United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Div. of Youth & Fam. Svcs. v. Jd
It is not meant to prevent a judge from changing a prior decision following "a newly developed basis in fact, law or context upon which to revisit a ruling made in the pre-trial stage." Higgins, supra, 315 N.J.Super. at 492 , 719 A. 2d 166 ; see also Gonzalez v. Ideal Tile Importing Co., 371 N.J.Super. 349, 356 , 853 A. 2d 298 (App.Div.2004) (holding that judges are not obligated "to slavishly follow an erroneous or uncertain interlocutory ruling"), aff'd, 184 N.J. 415 , 877 A. 2d 1247 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1092 , 126 S.Ct. 1042 , 163 L.Ed. 2d 857 (2006).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Waubanascum
v.
Shawano County, Wisconsin
v.
Shawano County, Wisconsin
No. 05-551.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 2006.
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.