115 Pa. Commw. 622 - Smith v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 370 Pa. Super. 179 - Commonwealth v. Schaeffer · 373 Pa. Super. 193 - Commonwealth v. Phillips · McKenna v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission · Smith v. Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission · Smith v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for: (12) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities where the officer or the person is a party to the communication and there is reasonable cause to believe that: (i) the other party to the communication is either: (A) holding a hostage; or (B) has barricaded himself and taken a position of confinement to avoid apprehension; and (ii) that party: (A) will resist with the use of weapons; or (B) is threatening suicide or harm to others.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.