Commonwealth v. Scott

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that counsel’s failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement constitutes per se ineffectiveness requiring a remand
• holding that counsel’s failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement constitutes per se ineffectiveness requiring a remand
• holding that counsel’s failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement constitutes per se ineffectiveness requiring a remand
• holding that counsel’s failure to file a Rule 1925(b) statement constitutes per se ineffectiveness requiring a remand
• holding that counsel’s failure to file Rule 1925(b) statement constitutes per se ineffectiveness requiring a remand
• stating that “waiver automatically applies … if an issue is not included in the Rule 1925(b) statement….”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Burton
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-05-13· cited 470×
• Commonwealth v. Thompson
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-01-24· cited 121×
• Commonwealth v. McBride
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2008-09-18· cited 100×
• Commonwealth v. Hopfer
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2009-01-28· cited 34×
• Com. v. Davis, C.
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2022-04-20· cited 23×
• Commonwealth v. Pulanco
  Berks County Court of Common Pleas· 2008-12-03
• Commonwealth v. Pulanco
  Berks County Court of Common Pleas· 2009-01-28

Cites

5 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth v. Lord
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1998-10-28· cited 1,456×
• Johnson v. Mississippi
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-13· cited 792×
• Commonwealth v. Halley
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-03-29· cited 346×
• Commonwealth v. Butler
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2002-12-19· cited 208×
• Commonwealth v. West
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2005-09-09· cited 54×