Bartlett v. Kingan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that father’s challenges to trial court’s order denying modification were waived because father’s Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was not sufficiently specific and coherent to allow trial court to understand specific allegations of error and offer a rebuttal
• holding that father’s challenges to trial court’s order denying modification were waived because father’s Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) statement was not sufficiently specific and coherent to allow the trial court to understand the specific allegations of error and offer a rebuttal
• explaining that issues not raised in accordance. with Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)(4) are waived
• noting that a trial court was not required to issue findings with respect to Section 5328(a
• stating that “a party may not use an appeal from the disposition of a petition for modification of custody as a substitute for an appeal from an underlying order for the purpose of relitigating matters pertaining to the underlying order.”
• directing “the statement must be concise and sufficiently specific … as to allow the trial court to understand the allegation of error and offer a rebuttal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).