Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 188 PASUPER 220 - Commonwealth v. Giovengo

Commonwealth v. Giovengo’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
October 1993
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably Commonwealth v. Pounds (1980), Commonwealth v. Duff (1963)

27 state decisions

12019581960197019801990decided

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. Holly v. Ashe · 130 Pa. Super. 536 - Com. Ex Rel. Paige v. Smith, Warden · Com. ex rel. Wilhelm v. Morgan · Commonwealth v. Meyer · Commonwealth v. Mayloy & Keating

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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In Com. ex rel. Wilhelm v. Morgan, 278 Pa. 395, 397 , 123 A. 337 , our Supreme Court said: `The right to temporarily defer sentence, while the court seeks information or the defendant applies for pardon or for other sufficient reason, is universally recognized. The practice of an indefinite suspension of sentence has also long been in vogue in this and some other states, although in a majority of jurisdictions such right is denied, on the ground that an indefinite suspension of sentence amounts to a pardon, which only the executive can grant: 8 R.C.L. 248. Where such practice is recognized the right to later impose sentence remains with the trial court, and the time of its exercise is a matter for judicial discretion; manifestly, however, it would be an abuse thereof to impose sentence after a great delay. Hence, under any view of the law, sentence must be imposed, if ever, within a reasonable time after conviction.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The prisoner himself might very well be the beneficiary of a system which defers sentencing until the completion of the term of a prior imprisonment. It should be remembered that one of the main purposes sought to be accomplished by imprisonment is to improve the habits of the prisoner and not merely punish him for his offenses. If a prior period of imprisonment accomplished proper results, it would not be necessary to impose a further imprisonment. On the other hand, if the prior imprisonment had not accomplished the desired results, further imprisonment might be deemed necessary. Such a system not only helps the prisoner, but works a great benefit to society as a whole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that in Pennsylvania a sentence may be suspended (footnote omitted) or deferred for a period of time equal to the maximum term for which the defendant might have been sentenced, provided proper reasons are present to justify the delay.”
    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.