Commonwealth v. Castillo’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
224 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 227 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 2007 Pa. Super. 120 - In re L.M. (2007), Commonwealth v. Hill (2011)
224 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 Commonwealth v. Clair · Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · Commonwealth v. Howard · Commonwealth v. Halley
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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [a]ppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be waived.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Direction to file statement of matters complained of. The lower court forthwith may enter an order directing the appellant to file of record in the lower court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal no later than 14 days after entry of such order. A failure to comply with such direction may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling or other matter complained of.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he Lord/Butler rule remains necessary to insure trial judges in each appealed case the opportunity to opine upon the issues which the appellant intends to raise, and thus provide appellate courts with records amenable to meaningful appellate review. See Lord, 719 A.2d at 308 . This firm rule avoids the situation that existed prior to Lord where trial courts were forced to anticipate which issues the appellant might raise and appellate courts had to determine “whether they could conduct a ‘meaningful review1 despite an appellant’s failure to file a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement or to include certain issues within a filed statement.” Butler, 812 A.2d at 633 . Moreover, the system provides litigants with clear rules regarding what is necessary for compliance and certainty of result for failure to comply. ... Therefore, we reverse the Superior Court and re-affirm the bright-line rule first set forth in Lord that “in order to preserve their claims for appellate review, [ajppellants must comply whenever the trial court orders them to file a Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925. Any issues not raised in a Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement will be deemed waived.” Lord, 719 A.2d at 309 . In reversing the court below, we specifically voice our disapproval of prior decisions of the intermediate courts to the extent that they have created exceptions to Lord and have addressed issues that should have been deemed waived. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Alsop, 79”
2 later decisions 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.