2001 Pa. Super. 287 - Commonwealth v. Eby’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2021
24 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 Griffith v. United States · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Target Corp. v. Hollister · Bank of New York v. Continental Airlines, Inc. · McDonald v. George Meany Center for Labor Studies
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrate on the record, as a proper starting point, [its] awareness of the sentencing guidelines.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A substantial question will be found where the defendant advances a color-able argument that the sentence imposed is either inconsistent with a specific provision of the code or is contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process. A claim that the sentencing court imposed an unreasonable sentence by sentencing outside the guideline ranges presents a “substantial question” for our review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he sentence imposed should call for confinement that is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense as it relates to the impact on the life of the victim and on the community, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.”
2 later decisions 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.