Commonwealth v. Davis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that if the court is going to be strict in holding appellants to the dictates of Lord, the court “should also be strict in requiring the trial court and clerk of courts to comply with the rules regarding notice of Rule 1925(b) orders”
• remanding for a new Rule 1925(b) order to be properly docketed and served, a new 1925(b) statement, and a new Rule 1925(a) opinion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• In re L.M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-05-01· cited 1,618×
• In re Estate of Boyle
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2013-10-04· cited 66×
• Commonwealth v. Chester
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2017-05-19· cited 36×
• Schlag v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-01-07· cited 14×
• Commonwealth v. Colavita
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2007-02-27· cited 4×
• Com. v. Lissmore, M.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2024-03-07· cited 2×