2001 Pa. Super. 44 - Commonwealth v. Fetter’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2023
7 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. Baker · Commonwealth v. Nester · 299 Pa. Super. 64 - Commonwealth v. Sanford · In re Martino · Commonwealth v. Wayne
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion for mistrial is a matter addressed to the discretion of the court. A trial court need only grant a mistrial where the alleged prejudicial event may reasonably be said to deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial. A mistrial is not necessary where cautionary instructions are adequate to overcome any possible prejudice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“18 Pa.C.S. § 5704 is not subject to other sections of the Wiretap Act, unless specifically enumerated ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“normal investigative procedures should have been used instead of the wire, as required under 18 Pa.C.S. §§ 5709(3)(vii) and 5710(A)(3), because this was an in-home interception and the wire would otherwise violate Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.”
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.