Commonwealth v. Tilghman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that only if a per curiam order expressly affirms on the basis of the lower court opinion does the order have precedential force
• holding that only if a per curiam order expressly affirms on the basis of the lower court opinion does the order have precedential force
• holding that a per curiam affirmance by the Supreme Court is not binding authority, because such an order does not relate its rationale
• holding that an opinion decided by a majority of our Supreme Court “becomes binding precedent on the courts of this Commonwealth”
• holding that only if a per curiam order expressly affirms on the basis of the lower court opinion does the order have precedential force
• explaining that an order with no articulated rationale does not constitute binding authority with respect to the legal issues raised in the appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).