Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Williams

2001 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2014
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Apprendi v. New Jersey · McMillan v. Pennsylvania · Commonwealth v. Wright · Commonwealth v. Archer · 444 Pa. Super. 295 - Commonwealth v. Jarvis

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

  1. “Because there is no dispute that Appellant’s sentence was within statutory limits, or that the court had jurisdiction to enter such sentences, Appellant’s challenge does not go to the legality of sentence imposed. Rather, we understand a claim that a court relied on an unconstitutional statute when it sentenced a defendant is a challenge to the discretionary aspects of sentencing.”
    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.