168 Pa. Super. 435 - Commonwealth v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 1989
3 federal appellate · 19 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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe · Commonwealth v. Bausewine · 142 Pa. Super. 327 - Commonwealth v. Marino · Commonwealth v. Karmendi · People v. Corral
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The entry is wilful and malicious, or felonious, within the statute [Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 901, 18 P.S. § 4901], when made with the intent to commit a felony in the building. The fact that the building entered was a store, tavern, or restaurant, and open to the public, does not prevent the crime from being burglary if the entry is wilful and malicious, that is, made with the intent to commit a felony therein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Cost“. . . be convicted of burglary because their entry into the taverns was an entry into a business place at the implied invitation of the owners, and not a wilful and malicious entry as defined by the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Cost“"Whoever, at any time, wilfully and maliciously, enters any building, with intent to commit any felony therein, is guilty of burglary. . . ." (Emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Cost
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.