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.
5 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 420 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Commonwealth v. Johnson.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Johnson Anchor | green | “where an appellate brief fails to provide any discussion of a claim with citation to relevant authority or fails to develop the issue in any other meaningful fashion capable of review, that claim is waived.” | 326 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Tyson | green | “relevance is the threshold for admissibility of evidence.” | 56 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Small, E., Aplt. | green | “the scope of our review is limited to the findings of the pcra court and the evidence of record, which we view in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before that court.” | 26 |
| 4 | Com. v. Herring, C. | green | “however, bad act evidence is only admissible ... '1) if a logical connection exists between that bad act(s) and the crime charged, linking them for a purpose the defendant intended to accomplish, or 2) if the bad acts manifest a signature crime.” | 7 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. Le, Tam M., Aplt. | green | “it is not an appellate court's function to act as an advocate for the parties.” | 5 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.