2001 Pa. Super. 28 - Commonwealth v. Ledoux’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Yarris · Commonwealth v. Miller · Commonwealth v. Rohrer
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In other words, under Rule 1411 the trial court has the discretion to treat untimely post trial motions as if they had not been filed at all. This is what the trial court did in the instant case. Under these circumstances, the Commonwealth's appeal had to have been taken within 30 days of the entering of the sentence under Rule 141 l(B)(2)(a)(ii). Here, the appeal was taken on April 1, 2000, well beyond that 30 day time frame. Therefore, the appeal is untimely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Since the Commonwealth’s post-sentence motion was filed beyond the 10-day limit, the post-sentence motion was untimely. Because the post-sentence motion was untimely, Rule 1411(B)(2)(b)(ii) (allowing the Commonwealth to file its notice of appeal 30 days after the court disposes of timely post-sentence motions) has not been triggered.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.