2001 Pa. Super. 262 - Commonwealth v. Gray’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2021
12 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 Terry v. Ohio · Illinois v. Wardlow · California v. Hodari D. · Millili v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing · Commonwealth v. Hicks
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he absence of a trial court opinion poses a substantial impediment to meaningful and effective appellate review. Rule 1925 is intended to aid trial judges in identifying and focusing upon those issues which the parties plan to raise on appeal. Rule 1925 is thus a crucial component of the appellate process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Rule 1925(b) speaks directly to the appellant's obligation to file the statement within 14 days, it is reasonable that such party may rely on the language of the rule in fulfilling his or her obligation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Among the factors to be considered in establishing a basis for reasonable suspicion are tips, the reliability of the informants, time, location, and suspicious activity, including flight.”
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.