Commonwealth v. Holden

How courts have described this case

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

• “ 'The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court’s scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal____’”
• \`The mere filing of a motion for modification and the court's scheduling of a hearing do not affect the running of the thirty day period for filing a timely notice of appeal. . . .'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Moir
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2000-12-21· cited 118×
• Marzullo v. Stop-N-Go Food Stores of Pittsburgh, Inc.
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-04-13· cited 10×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Gordon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-05-11· cited 71×
• Commonwealth v. Lynch
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-07-23· cited 33×
• Commonwealth v. Corson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-04-12· cited 28×
• Commonwealth v. Channell
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1984-11-16· cited 17×
• Commonwealth v. Canady
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-03-26· cited 15×
• Commonwealth v. Leonard
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-12-30· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Burkett
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1986-04-24· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Wall
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-11-18· cited 2×