Commonwealth v. Klinger, R.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a] pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure” (citation omitted)
• concluding that a mailing stamp date on the prisoner’s envelope proved that the prisoner placed his legal filing in the hands of the prison authorities on or before the stamp date
• explaining that the choice to represent oneself “does not entitle [an appellant] to any advantage due to [her] lack of legal training”
• stating that “a pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.” (citation omitted)
• explaining that the concise statement “must be sufficiently ‘concise’ and ‘coherent’ such that the trial court may be able to identify the issues to be raised on appeal[.]”
• stating that “status as a pro se litigant does not entitle [appellant] to any advantage due to his lack of legal training[,] and “a pro se litigant must still comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).