139 Pa. Commw. 235 - Ploof v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2015
11 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Zucker · Hando v. Commonwealth · 52 Pa. Commw. 24 - McKay v. Commonwealth · 77 Pa. Commw. 134 - Klotz v. Commonwealth · Conlon v. Commonwealth, State Board of Nurse Examiners
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ploof argues strenuously that ... [the] letter is not admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. Because we hold that the doctor’s letter is admissible under Section 1519(b) of the Vehicle Code as evidence ..., it is not necessary to determine whether the letter is admissible under other exceptions of the hearsay rule.”
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.