Commonwealth v. Morris

How courts have described this case

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

• where petitioner has not been fully apprised of his appellate rights, the proper remedy is the nunc pro tunc filing of post-trial motions
• where defendant has been granted leave to file a direct appeal nunc pro tunc, the proper practice is for the PCHA court to “remand the case to the trial court to allow the petitioner to file post trial motions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Miranda
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-03-12· cited 65×
• Commonwealth v. Bracey
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1983-06-03· cited 49×
• Commonwealth v. Gaito
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-04-18· cited 18×
• Commonwealth v. Clark
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1982-03-12· cited 8×
• Commonwealth v. Stackpole
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1980-02-22· cited 6×
• Commonwealth v. Andrews
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-10-09

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Douglas v. California
  Supreme Court· 1963-04-29· cited 3,330×
• Commonwealth v. Lee
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1975-03-18· cited 90×
• Commonwealth v. Faison
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-03-25· cited 85×
• Commonwealth v. Robinson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-04-22· cited 40×
• Commonwealth v. Lowery
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1970-03-20· cited 33×
• Commonwealth v. Harris
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-06-01· cited 13×
• Commonwealth v. Ligon
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1973-09-19· cited 12×
• Commonwealth v. Bricker
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1971-10-12· cited 9×