3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 29 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. Radecki.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Radecki Anchor | green | “we cannot look beyond the statement of questions presented and the prefatory rule 2119(f) statement to determine whether a substantial question exists.” | 20 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Eline | green | “a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” | 5 |
| 3 | Commonwealth v. Eline | green | “held on numerous occasions that a claim of inadequate consideration of mitigating factors does not raise a substantial question for our review.” | 4 |
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.