Commonwealth v. Harrelson’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Moore v. Asente (2003), Commonwealth v. Plowman (2002)
46 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 812 (§ 202 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Commonwealth v. Campbell · Tolliver v. Blizzard · Reichle v. Reichle · Commonwealth v. Wasson · Warner v. Davis
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here a statute is intelligible on its face, the courts are not at liberty to supply words or insert something or make additions ... or cure an omission.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e are not at liberty to add or subtract from the legislative enactment or discover meanings not reasonably ascertainable from the language used.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“CR 43.04 provides that certain types of cases may be tried by deposition. Obviously, under such circumstances the trial judge does not have an opportunity to judge the credibility of the witnesses on the basis of physical appearance in court. The “clearly erroneous” standard is sufficiently broad to permit the reviewing court to adopt a method of review which best fits the questions involved and the particular facts in a specific case. The appellate court should review each case according to what is most appropriate under the specific circumstances. The fact that part of the proceedings before the trial court are taken by means of deposition does not permit the reviewing court to conduct a de novo consideration of the facts and it does not allow the reviewing court to substitute its judgment for that of the original finder of fact.”
2 later decisions 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.