Commonwealth v. McCartney’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably 319 Pa. Super. 398 - Commonwealth v. Gussey (1983), Commonwealth v. Verna (1976)
37 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 v. Emerick · Commonwealth v. Cronin · Commonwealth v. Moogerman · Commonwealth v. Halteman · Commonwealth v. Garman
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is an erroneous concept that under the guise of a de novo hearing, a Common Pleas court can not only examine the facts of a case to determine whether the appellant actually deserves his suspension, but can additionally modify the suspension period promulgated by the Secretary. Knowing this full well, some lower courts ... simply reverse the suspension altogether. To do so, or to modify the suspension, infringes upon the discretion vested in the Secretary and amounts to a manifest abuse of discretion ... Thus, the Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Moogerman, 385 Pa. 256, 259 , 122 A.2d 804, 806 (1956) has said, ‘The decision of the County Court in the case at bar, if unreversed, would tend to give ballast to the unsubstantiated notion that the Courts may be called upon to function as ex officio pardon boards to mitigate the penalties which the Legislature empowered the Secretary of [Transportation] to impose under given conditions.’”
3 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.