Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Holmes

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 10, 1983No. 1143, Nos. 2529 and 900PublishedCited by 117 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SPAETH, Judge:

We ordered these three appeals consolidated because the principal issue in each of them is whether a “boilerplate” post-verdict motion—that is, a motion stating only that “the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict” or that “the verdict was against the weight of the evidence”—preserves any issue for appellate review. On this issue, we have found the law far from clear, and we have been unable to agree on how the pertinent decisions should be interpreted. However, we do all agree with Judge WIEAND’s discussion of the facts, and also, that on those facts, the judgments…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Linkletter v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. Commonwealth v. BlairSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
  3. Commonwealth v. GravelySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  4. Commonwealth v. PronkoskieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. WatersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978

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

3Cited by117 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. TaylorSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  2. Commonwealth v. Melendez-RodriguezSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Commonwealth v. WhitemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
  4. Commonwealth v. BlackSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985
  5. Commonwealth v. BarnhartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1985

112 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