Commonwealth v. McCandless’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

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

1. “Among the related but distinct rules which make up the law of the case doctrine are that: (1) upon remand for further proceedings, a trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the appellate court in the matter; (2) upon a second appeal, an appellate court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the same appellate court; and (3) upon transfer of a matter between trial judges of coordinate jurisdiction, the transferee trial court may not alter the resolution of a legal question previously decided by the transferrer trial court.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 131 - Windows, H. v. Erie Insurance Exchange · 2006 Pa. Super. 306 - George v. Ellis

2. “The law of the case doctrine refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter.... The various rules which make up the law of the case doctrine serve not only to promote the goal of judicial economy ... but also operate (1) to protect the settled expectations of the parties; (2) to insure uniformity of decisions; (3) to maintain consistency during the course of a single case; (4) to effectuate the proper and streamlined administration of justice; and (5) to bring litigation to an end. Commonwealth v. McCandless, 880 A.2d 1262 , 1267 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, [ 593 Pa. 657 ] 933 A.2d 650 ( [Pa.] 2007) (quoting Commonwealth v. Starr [ 541 Pa. 564 ], 664 A.2d 1326 , 1331 ( [Pa.] 1995) ). Thus, under the doctrine of the law of the case, when an appellate court has considered and decided a question submitted to it upon appeal, it will not, upon a subsequent appeal on another phase of the case, reverse its previous ruling even though convinced it was erroneous. This rule has been adopted and frequently applied in our own State. It is not, however, inflexible. It does not have the finality of the doctrine of res judicata. "The prior ruling may have been followed as the law of the case but there is a difference between such adherence and res judicata; one di”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2013 Pa. Super. 84 - Commonwealth v. Gacobano · 2016 Pa. Super. 138 - Neidert, Z. v. Charlie, A.

3. “[i]n some circumstances, however, application of the rule can thwart the very purpose the rule was intended to serve, ie,, that judicial economy and efficiency be maintained. Thus we [have said] that departure from the rule of coordinate jurisdiction is allowed where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if. followed. Moreover, the rule does not apply where two motions differ in kind, then a second judge is not precluded from granting relief though another judge has denied an earlier motion. The rule does not apply when distinct procedural postures present different considerations, then a substituted judge may correct mistakes made by another judge at an earlier stage of the trial process, or, perhaps more accurately, may revisit provisional rulings made earlier in the litigation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 131 - Windows, H. v. Erie Insurance Exchange · Maione v. Greenway Center, Inc.