Otterson v. Jones, 719 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Otterson v. Jones, 719 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 100× by 83 distinct cases · "Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived."
cited 18× by 18 distinct cases · “Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
cited 9× by 9 distinct cases · “Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”
cited 7× by 7 distinct cases · “[F]rom this date forward . . . [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a [s]tatement of [errors] [c]omplained of on [a]ppeal pursuant to Rule 1925. Any issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.”
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases · “in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Rule 1925”; “[a]ny issues not raised in a 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived”
6 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance (pa, 2010-10-22)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
Pa. · 2010 · confidence medium
As discussed above, by contrast, in the instant case, Appellants substantially complied with the instructions set forth in the trial court’s order, namely to file a copy of their 1925(b) Statement with the court and with the trial judge. 14 In affirming the trial court’s order, the Superior Court herein determined it was bound by this Court’s decisions in Lord, 553 Pa. at 420, 719 A.2d at 309 (stating that, after that decision, any issues not raised in a court-ordered 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived); Commonwealth v. Butler, 571 Pa. 441, 446 , 812 A.2d 631, 633-34 (holding that L…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commonwealth v. Lord
Pa. · 1998 · confidence medium
The Majority notes that, “the potential for construing Rule 1410 as the exclusive provision for preserving an appellate issue is understandable.” Majority at 420, 719 A.2d at 309.
cited Cited "see" Com. v. Rodriguez-Quijano, J.
Pa. Super. Ct. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lord, 719 A.2d 309 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Agnes OTTERSON
v.
Allen JONES
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Nov 9, 1998.
719 A.2d 309
William H. Resch, Jr., Philadelphia, for Allen Jones., Evan K. Aidman, Bryn Mawr, for Agnew Otterson., Dale G. Larrimore, Philadelphia, for Ami-cus-PA Trial Lawyers Assn.
Cappy, Castille, Flaherty, Newman, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala.
Published
29 passages pin-cited by 116 cases
Pinpoint authority: #166 of 633,719
Citer courts: Superior Court of Pennsylvania (117) · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (3) · Commonwealth Court of Pennsylv… (1)

[*310] ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently granted.