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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2007–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Berg v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2023Id. at 1012 (bold emphasis added). 2020Id. at at 1012 (bold emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
Lineberger v. Wyethgreen2 sentences2007Again, revised Rule 1925(b)(4)(v) clarified that "[e]ach error identified in the Statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue contained therein which was raised in the trial court. . . ." The Notes to Rule 1925(b), as amended, further explain that the new Rule "should help counsel to comply with the concise-yet-sufficiently detailed requirement and avoid waiver under either Lineberger v. Wyeth-Ayerst, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super.Ct.2006) [(issues waived where the very general proposition raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement constituted waiver)] or Kanter . . . ." The Notes clarify tha 2007Again, revised Rule 1925(b)(4)(v) clarified that "fejach error identified in the Statement will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue contained therein which was raised in the trial court....” The Notes to Rule 1925(b), as amended, further explain that the new Rule “should help counsel to comply with the concise-ye1-sufficiently detailed requirement and avoid waiver under either Lineberger v. Wyeth-Ayerst, 894 A.2d 141 (Pa.Super.Ct.2006) [ (issues waived where the very general proposition raised in the Rule 1925(b) statement constituted waiver)] or Kanter ...The Notes clarify that the "2 | 2 | 3 |
Gagnon v. Scarpellired1 sentence2023See N.T., 10/18/21, at 5. 4 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Wallsgreen1 sentence2014In light of these below. of discretion is more than a mere error of judgment; thus, a sentencing - 11 - J-A19003-14 judgment exercised was manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will Commonwealth v. Walls, 926 A.2d 957, 961 (Pa. 2007). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kanter v. Epstein
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 , 400- 03 (Pa. Super. 2004), allowance of appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied sub nom. 2019See, e.g., Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 , 400- 03 (Pa. Super. 2004), allowance of appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied sub nom. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Kanter v. Epstein
green
2 sentences2019See, e.g., Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 , 400- 03 (Pa. Super. 2004), allowance of appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied sub nom. 2019See, e.g., Lineberger v. Wyeth, 894 A.2d 141, 148-49 (Pa. Super. 2006); Kanter v. Epstein, 866 A.2d 394 , 400- 03 (Pa. Super. 2004), allowance of appeal denied, 584 Pa. 678 , 880 A.2d 1239 (2005), cert. denied sub nom. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
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.