Opinion · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Com. v. Hardy

940 A.2d 362

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Date
2008-01-02
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reiterating that "[t]his Court will not act as counsel and will not develop arguments on behalf of an appellant" and may find certain issues waived if a defect in an appellate brief impedes meaningful review (citation omitted)
  • stating it is an appellant’s duty to present arguments sufficiently developed for our review and supported with references to the record and citation to legal authorities
  • stating: “[I]t is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review. The brief -8- J-A15035-20 must support the claims with pertinent discussion….”
  • stating it is an appellant's duty to present sufficiently developed arguments for our review, including pertinent discussion and citations to legal authorities; where a brief fails to comport with this standard, we may dismiss the appeal entirely or find certain issues waived
  • “When briefing the various issues that have been preserved, it is an appellant’s duty to present arguments that are sufficiently developed for our review.”
  • course of conduct undertaken by investigating police officer

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Com. v. Hardy. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
62 opinions
940 A.2d 362 (2008)

COM.
v.
HARDY

No. 261 MAL (2007)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 2, 2008.

Disposition of petition for allowance of appeals. Denied.