Commonwealth v. Appel

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that a fringed flag in a state courtroom conferred on the court admiralty or maritime jurisdiction
• “Appellant was afforded a trial de novo and, therefore, matters pertaining to the proceedings before the district magistrate are irrelevant.”
• “Appellant was afforded a trial de novo and, therefore, matters pertaining to the proceedings before the district magistrate are irrelevant.”
• dismissing a similar claim as having previously been rendered irrelevant

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

• First Union Mortgage Corp. v. Frempong
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1999-12-31· cited 82×
• Commonwealth v. Kerry
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2006-08-23· cited 39×
• Commonwealth v. Beaufort
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2015-03-24· cited 24×
• Commonwealth v. Smith
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-02-15· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. Collazo
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1997-04-21· cited 9×
• McCann v. Greenway
  W.D. Missouri· 1997-01-15· cited 8×
• Sadlier v. Payne
  D. Utah· 1997-08-26· cited 4×
• People v. Drew
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2010-05-13
• James Marlin Ebert v. State
  Tex. App. Ct., 3rd Dist. (Austin)· 2007-07-27

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Duncan v. Louisiana
  Supreme Court· 1968-05-20· cited 3,740×
• Codispoti v. Pennsylvania
  Supreme Court· 1974-06-26· cited 370×
• Commonwealth v. Mayberry
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-10-16· cited 78×