Copeland v. Ludman Steel Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a challenge to one’s classification as an SVP is not cognizable under the PCRA
• holding that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support an SVP classification was not cognizable under the PCRA.
• holding that an issue identified on appeal, but not developed in an appellate brief is waived
• holding that a sufficiency of evidence claim is not cognizable under the PCRA when it is not tethered to a corresponding ineffective assistance of counsel analysis
• stating that challenge to non-punitive, regulatory “registration, notification, and counseling requirements for offenders under Megan’s Law” is not cognizable under the PCRA
• concluding appellant’s sufficiency claim, without any ineffective assistance of counsel analysis, was not cognizable under the PCRA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).