Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 Pa. Super. 87 - Commonwealth v. Flores

2007 Pa. Super. 87 - Commonwealth v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Castillo · Commonwealth v. Butler · Commonwealth v. May

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If Appellant wants to preserve a claim that the evidence was insufficient, then the 1925(b) statement needs to specify the element or elements upon which the evidence was insufficient. This Court can then analyze the element or elements on appeal. [Where a] 1925(b) statement [ ] does not specify the allegedly unproven elementsf,] ... the sufficiency issue is waived [on appeal].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The principles on which we rely in this opinion all predate its publication. This is to say that the preexisting rules and cases were there to guide counsel. Appellate mandates are not hyper-technical. They are designed to foster the uniform consideration of the substantive issues in all cases. We must not proceed haphazardly — following procedure in one case, ignoring it in another— under the guise of reaching those substantive issues. While doing so might lead us to resolve the merits in any one matter, it would be unfair to litigants and counsel in so many other cases who do follow the rules. It would also be unfair to those who do not follow the rules and against whom we enforce those rules. Moreover, disregarding procedure would diminish predictability, breed uncertainty and quickly erode the law and order we seek to protect, placing in then.' stead whim and chaos. Rules are at the heart of what lawyers do. These rules are written to permit fair adjudications and to engender a sense among the citizenry that them claims will be considered when the rules are followed. We admonish counsel to adhere to the rules.”
    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.