Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Munchinski

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided November 30, 1990No. 01373PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TAMILIA, Judge:

Appellant’s counsel, in flagrant violation of the rules of appellate procedure in briefing this case, has inundated this Court with an appellate brief of 203 pages including 28 statements of questions involved covering 6 pages, as well as a supplemental brief of 16 pages with 40 pages of appendices, and a reply brief of 37 pages with 17 pages of appendices. The statement of issues involved is so convoluted and serpentine in expression and logic, as to provide extreme difficulty for this Court to extrapolate the essence of the arguments from irrelevant and inappropriate argument.

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. PierceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  2. Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. MaroneySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
  3. Commonwealth v. DuggerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  4. Government of the Virgin Islands v. Glen Smith, Elton Rieara, Elvis Smith and Roland GeorgesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
  5. Commonwealth v. PettusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. People v. SealsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. David Munchinski v. Harry WilsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2012
  3. Commonwealth v. ChmielSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Commonwealth v. MurphySuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  5. Commonwealth v. BellSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1998

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API