2003 Pa. Super. 500 - Amicone v. Rok’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2026
16 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 Nixon v. Nixon · Bass v. Commonwealth · Cook v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review · Criss v. Wise · In Re CS
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The statement of the questions involved ... should not ordinarily exceed 15 lines, must never exceed one page, and must always be on a separate page, without any other matter appearing thereon. This rule is to be considered in the highest degree mandatory, admitting of no exception_” See, Amicone v. Rok, 839 A.2d 1109 (Pa.Super.2003) (Failure to conform briefs to the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in the quashing or dismissing of an appeal where the defects in the brief are”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Thus, it is clear that, whatever extraordinary circumstance is alleged as the reason for the late filing of the appeal-fraud, breakdown of the court’s operation through default of its officers, or non-negligent conduct on the part of appellant, appellant’s attorney, or the attorney’s staff-the petition to file the appeal nunc pro tunc must be filed within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the extraordinary circumstance”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“1. the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed late as a result of non-negligent circumstances, either as they relate to the appellant or the appellant’s counsel; 2. the appellant filed the notice of ap- • peal shortly after the expiration date; and 3.the appellee was not prejudiced by the delay.”
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.