Commonwealth v. Dowling’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably 2006 Pa. Super. 35 - Lineberger v. Wyeth (2006), 2004 Pa. Super. 470 - Kanter v. Epstein (2004)
68 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. Kloiber · Smith v. Westchester County Bar Ass'n · Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Lord · Commonwealth v. Craver
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 68 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.” Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683, 686 (Pa.Super.2001). “When an appellant fails adequately to identify in a concise manner the issues sought to be pursued on appeal, the trial court is impeded in its preparation of a legal analysis which is pertinent to those issues.” In re Estate of Daubert, 757 A.2d 962, 963 (Pa.Super.2000). “In other words, a Concise Statement which is too vague to allow the court to identify the issues raised on appeal is the functional equivalent of no Concise Statement at all.” Dowling, 778 A.2d at 686 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because Appellant's vague Concise Statement has hampered appellate review, [his issues are] waived.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The absence of a trial court opinion poses a substantial impediment to meaningful and effective appellate review. Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial component of the appellate process.”
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.