Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 3/14/1988

Commonwealth v. Felix

Citations

  • 539 A.2d 371
  • 372 Pa. Super. 145
  • 1988 Pa. Super. LEXIS 768

How courts have described this case

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

  • “[G]leaning through the entire argument section of appellant’s brief for indications of the appearance of a substantial question was precisely the practice Tuladziecki condemned.”
  • “[G]leaning through the entire argument section of appellant’s brief for indications of the appearance of a substantial question was precisely the practice Tuladziecki condemned.”
  • court may look to both Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement and statement of questions presented to determine if substantial questions are raised
  • Court may consider both Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement and Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement of questions presented to determine if substantial questions are raised
  • court may look to both Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement and statement of questions presented to determine if substantial questions are raised
  • court may look to both Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement and statement of questions presented to determine if substantial questions are raised

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rowley, Kelly, Watkins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

29 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Commonwealth v. Felix

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.