Com. v. Smith, J.

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that Rule 1925 is “intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal.” (citation omitted)
• holding “that, after the issuance of an order and opinion granting suppression, the Commonwealth may not offer a new legal theory to oppose suppression in a motion for reconsideration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

• Com. v. Fulton, A.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2025-09-19· cited 1×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Wong Sun v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1963-01-14· cited 12,871×
• Commonwealth v. Lord
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-10-28· cited 1,456×
• In the Interest of L.J.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-10-30· cited 659×
• Com. v. Skipper, G.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-06-09· cited 10×

Other cases named Com. v. Smith, J.

7 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Com. v. Smith, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2023-10-11· cited 7×
• Com. v. SMITH, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-06-23· cited 1×
• Com. v. SMITH, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-05-23· cited 1×
• Com. v. Smith, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2023-10-11· cited 1×
• Com. v. SMITH, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-12-28
• Com. v. SMITH, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2010-01-27
• Com. v. Smith, J.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2026-04-10