Commonwealth v. Selenski’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “AND NOW, this 29th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO Petitioner’s first issue, as stated by Petitioner: Does the constitutional right to present a defense include the right to offer proven science bearing on the understanding of human memory and perception, and police practices in the identification process, where those advances are unknown to laypersons? Further, the Superior Court’s order affirming the judgment of sentence is VACATED, and the matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for further consideration in light of Commonwealth v. Walker, 625 Pa. 450 , 92 A.3d 766 (2014). In all other respects, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2017 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Selenski · 2015 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Selenski