2002 Pa. Super. 234 - Commonwealth v. Lemon’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2025 · most notably Caln Nether Co., L.P. v. Board of Supervisors (2004), Commonwealth v. Heggins (2002)
1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · Commonwealth v. Dowling · 450 Pa. Super. 105 - Commonwealth v. Genovese · 2000 Pa. Super. 219 - In Re Estate of Daubert
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the trial court has to guess what issues an appellant is appealing, that is not enough for meaningful review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court may not frame the issues for an appellant, either by guessing or anticipating ... the appellate courts have emphasized that a trial court’s unsolicited discussion of issues not raised by an appellant in his 1925(b) statement by guessing, anticipating, or predicting the issues would not save the issues from being waived. See Commonwealth v. Alsop, 799 A.2d 129 , 2002 WL 993012 , (Pa.Super.2002); Commonwealth v. Steadley, 2000 PA Super 62 , 748 A.2d 707 (Pa.Super.2000); Commonwealth v. Butler, 2000 PA Super 187 , 756 A.2d 55 (Pa.Super.2000), appeal granted in part, 564 Pa. 471 , 769 A.2d 442 (2001).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If we allow review of cases where a trial judge determined which issues an appellant could raise and how to frame those issues, that appellant would potentially lose a variety of protected constitutional rights. This procedure that appellant urges upon this Court would undermine the appellate process in that it severely limits the types and nuances of arguments that appellant may raise on appeal.”
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.