Commonwealth v. Phillips’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably Commonwealth v. Goosby (1973), 298 Pa. Super. 92 - Pratt v. Stein (1982)
99 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 Kotteakos v. United States · Sherwood v. Elgart · Commonwealth v. Meyers · Commonwealth v. Myma · Commonwealth v. Stallone
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . `Every unwise or irrelevant remark made in the course of a trial by a judge, a witness, or counsel does not compel the granting of a new trial. A new trial is required when the remark is prejudicial; that is, when it is of such a nature or substance or delivered in such a manner that it may reasonably be said to have deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial.' " (Emphasis added by this Court in Goosby, supra . )”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It must be determined from all the circumstances whether a remark has a prejudicial effect; there is no fixed rule applicable in every case. An accepted guide in determining prejudicial effect is that, if the remark may be said with fair assurance to have had but a slight effect upon the jury, if any at all, and one is not left in doubt that it had no substantial influence in the case, it will not vitiate the otherwise fair trial. Commonwealth v. Phillips, supra 183 Pa.Super. at 382 , 132 A.2d at 736 (1957).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial judge may, and should, confine arguments within the limitations of legitimate advocacy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.