Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
15 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2009–2025 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Com. v. Hipps, D.green2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Hipps, 274 A.3d 1263 , 1271 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 , 1305 n.10 (Pa. Super. 1997) (appeal frivolous where it lacks any basis in law or fact). 2023See Commonwealth v. Hipps, 274 A.3d 1263 , 1271 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“Frivolousness and meritlessness are distinct concepts. [F]rivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.”) (citations & quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 , 1305 n.10 (Pa. Super. 1997) (“[A]n appeal is frivolous where it lacks any basis in law or fact.”) (citation & quotation marks omitted). | 6 | 6 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025See Commonwealth v. Hipps, 274 A.3d 1263 , 1271 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 , 1305 n.10 (Pa. Super. 1997) (appeal frivolous where it lacks any basis in law or fact). 2023See Commonwealth v. Hipps, 274 A.3d 1263 , 1271 n.3 (Pa. Super. 2022) (“Frivolousness and meritlessness are distinct concepts. [F]rivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.”) (citations & quotation marks omitted); Commonwealth v. Smith, 700 A.2d 1301 , 1305 n.10 (Pa. Super. 1997) (“[A]n appeal is frivolous where it lacks any basis in law or fact.”) (citation & quotation marks omitted). | 3 | 4 |
Smith v. Board of Probation & Parolegreen2 sentences2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed 2022As our Commonwealth Court has explained, “frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, 574 A.2d 558, 562 (Pa. 1990)). - 14 - Gamboa-Taylor’s rule that general ineffectiveness claims cannot satisfy a timeliness exception, the PCRA court lacked jurisdiction to grant Hipps relief.4 Order reversed. | 3 | 3 |
Zerby v. Shanongreen2 sentences2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed 2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed | 2 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Wrecksgreen1 sentence2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed | 1 | 1 |
Potanko v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.green1 sentence2020Thus, in the oft- cited decision of March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co., 132 A. 355, 356 (Pa. 1926), we articulated a slightly higher standard, in reaffirming the “immemorable right to grant a new trial, whenever, in [the court’s] opinion, the justice of the particular case so requires.” A quarter century later, in Potanko v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 84 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. 1951), we reaffirmed that a trial court may “grant a new trial ‘sua sponte’ whenever in its opinion the justice of the particular case so requires.” At the same time, our Court also utilized the term “miscarriage o | 1 | 1 |
March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co.green1 sentence2020Thus, in the oft- cited decision of March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co., 132 A. 355, 356 (Pa. 1926), we articulated a slightly higher standard, in reaffirming the “immemorable right to grant a new trial, whenever, in [the court’s] opinion, the justice of the particular case so requires.” A quarter century later, in Potanko v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 84 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. 1951), we reaffirmed that a trial court may “grant a new trial ‘sua sponte’ whenever in its opinion the justice of the particular case so requires.” At the same time, our Court also utilized the term “miscarriage o | 1 | 1 |
Clewell v. Pummergreen1 sentence2020Thus, in the oft- cited decision of March v. Philadelphia & West Chester Traction Co., 132 A. 355, 356 (Pa. 1926), we articulated a slightly higher standard, in reaffirming the “immemorable right to grant a new trial, whenever, in [the court’s] opinion, the justice of the particular case so requires.” A quarter century later, in Potanko v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 84 A.2d 522, 525 (Pa. 1951), we reaffirmed that a trial court may “grant a new trial ‘sua sponte’ whenever in its opinion the justice of the particular case so requires.” At the same time, our Court also utilized the term “miscarriage o | 1 | 1 |
J. A. v. Department of Public Welfaregreen1 sentence2020Welfare, 873 A.2d 782, 785 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). 5 The “wholly frivolous” standard, which is applied where the right to counsel is constitutional, is a slightly higher standard than the “without merit” standard applied in situations where, as here, the right to counsel is statutorily based. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Adams v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
green
1 sentence2024Id.; Adams v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 885 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).6 6 “It is worth noting that frivolousness is a slightly higher standard than lack of merit; an argument may be meritless, but not frivolous.” Zerby v. Shanon, 964 A.2d 956, 960 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (citing Smith v. Commonwealth, . . . 574 A.2d 558, 562 ([Pa.] 1990)). “[C]ounsel is not permitted to withdraw” pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), “unless the appeal is wholly frivolous, but . . . counsel is permitted to do so [under Turner] if the case lacks merit, even if it is not so anemic as to be deemed | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.