Commonwealth v. Neidig

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth v. Neidig

97 A.3d 1202

DecidedAugust 19, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 97 A.3d 1202 (Commonwealth v. Neidig) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Neidig, 97 A.3d 1202 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court to consider the implications of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c), as outlined in the dissenting statement by Judge Fitzgerald. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (where an “appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court to consider the implications of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c), as outlined in the dissenting statement by Judge Fitzgerald. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3) (where an “appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, the appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 A.3d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-neidig-pa-2014.