McLin v. McLin

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that this Court may limit its review to the cognizable arguments it can glean from a pro se appellant’s brief, despite noncompliance with the Rules of Appellate Procedure
• providing that we may review the cognizable arguments we can glean from an appellate brief, despite a noncompliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, even if those violations are “egregious,” if they do not preclude meaningful appellate review
• stating “this Court has deemed meaningful review of the merits possible when it could discern a [pro se] appellant’s argument” (citation omitted)
• limiting our review “to those cognizable arguments we can glean despite the brief’s noncompliance.”
• “when it comes to compliance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, ‘this Court is generally inclined to construe pro se filings liberally’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).