Skip to main content

Commonwealth v. Russell

Citations

  • 665 A.2d 1239
  • 445 Pa. Super. 510
  • 1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3167

How courts have described this case

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

  • concluding that the fact that a homicide detective responded to inquiries by a federal prosecutor regarding a witness’ cooperation in the appellant’s case did not constitute an “agreement” that had to be disclosed by the Commonwealth
  • stating that this Court is unable to review an appellant’s claims where he fails to include relevant citations to authority or legal discussion in his brief
  • declining to review claim where appellants stated why evidence was against weight of the evidence, warranting new trial, but failed to provide citation to relevant authority or discussion thereof
  • Superior Court would not review defendant’s argument which contained no discussion of or citation to relevant authority
  • Superior Court would not review argument that contained no citation to or discussion of relevant legal authority
  • Superior Court would not review argument that contained no citation to or discussion of relevant legal authority

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cavanaugh, Cirillo, Hester

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this 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.