Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 8/6/2008

Commonwealth v. Smith

Citations

955 A.2d 391
2008 Pa. Super. 179
2008 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3054

How courts have described this case

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

reasoning that preclusion of testimony could be appropriate sanction for discovery violation, as long as such preclusion did not result in ultimate dismissal of the case
stating that this Court does not condone “incorporation by reference” to earlier filings
finding issues not waived despite vague Rule 1925(b) statement when the trial court “filed an opinion which meaningfully addressed the [appellant’s] arguments.”
finding issues not waived despite vague Rule 1925(b) statement when the trial court “filed an opinion which meaningfully addressed the [appellant’s] -4- J-S40041-17 arguments.”
declining to find waiver, despite a vague concise statement, where the trial court filed an opinion which meaningfully addressed the Commonwealth’s arguments
finding issues not waived despite vague Rule 1925(b) statement when the trial court “filed an opinion which meaningfully addressed the [appellant’s] -4- J-S40039-17 arguments.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Elliott, Stevens, Melvin, Bender, Bowes, Gantman, Panella, Donohue, Allen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.