444 Pa. Super. 257 - Commonwealth v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2010
15 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 299 Pa. Super. 64 - Commonwealth v. Sanford · Commonwealth v. Shaw · 441 Pa. Super. 653 - Commonwealth v. Hodge · 398 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Badman · 430 Pa. Super. 63 - Commonwealth v. Manchas
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This is not an issue of waiver. Even though, as a general rule, a defendant need not file a post-sentence motion-in order to preserve issues for appellate review, a weight of the evidence argument may be addressed only by the trial court. Therefore, a defendant who wishes to seek a new trial on grounds that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence, must necessarily raise the issue via a post-sentencing motion in the trial court. If the trial court denies the motion, the defendant may then file an appeal in which the trial court’s exercise of discretion will be subject to review. [A] panel of this court has held that, even if the trial court has filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) in which it addresses the weight of the evidence issue, the trial court had no basis upon which to grant a new trial without a motion for a new trial before it. Thus, it could not exercise its discretion in granting or denying same.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The fact that the trial court filed an opinion pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) in the instant case does not distinguish it from Hodge in that notwithstanding appellant's statement pursuant to Pa.R.A.P.1925, the trial court had no basis upon which to grant a new trial without a motion for a new trial before it. Thus, it could not exercise its discretion in granting or denying same.”
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.