7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 156 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. Garland.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Commonwealth v. Garland Anchor | green | “in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, an appellant's rule 1925(b) statement must state with specificity the element or elements upon which the appellant alleges that the evidence was insufficient.” | 50 |
| 2 | Commonwealth v. Dowling | green | “a concise statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no concise statement at all.” | 31 |
| 3 | In Re Estate of Daubert | green | “when an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.” | 26 |
| 4 | Commonwealth v. Gibbs | green | “such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 20 |
| 5 | Commonwealth v. Garland | green | “such specificity is of particular importance in cases where, as here, the appellant was convicted of multiple crimes each of which contains numerous elements that the commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 18 |
| 6 | Commonwealth v. Allshouse | green | “when an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.” | 6 |
| 7 | Commonwealth v. Allshouse | green | “concisely identify each ruling or error that the appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinent issues.” | 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.