Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 Pa. Super. 239 - Commonwealth v. Fleming

2002 Pa. Super. 239 - Commonwealth v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

12 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Sweatt v. Department of Corrections · Sweeney v. Lotz · 2001 Pa. Super. 240 - Commonwealth v. Baker

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.

  1. “(3) The county clerk of courts shall, upon sentencing, ... transmit to ... the ... agent designated by the county commissioners of the county with the approval of the president judge of the county and to the ... [DOC] ... copies of all orders for restitution ... reparation, fees, costs, fines and penalties. (5) The ... [DOC] shall be authorized to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation. Any amount deducted shall be transmitted by the [DOC] ... to the probation department of the county or other agent designated by the county commissioners of the county....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It merits emphasis, however, that the prerogative for collection of such monies is not solely that of the county district attorney since Act 84 vests such a prerogative in the correction authorities as well:... [Quoting 42 Pa.C.S. §9728(b)(5)]. “Thus it is clear that the statute expressly authorizes correction officials to make deductions from an inmate’s account, and does not impose prior court authorization as a threshold condition. See: Sweeney v. Lotz, 787 A.2d 449 (Pa. Commw. 2001). “Therefore, although we are compelled to vacate the trial court orders, this opinion must not be construed as affecting the authority conferred by Act 84 upon correction officials to make appropriate deductions and payments from the personal account of appellant.” Id. at 670-71.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It merits emphasis, however, that the prerogative for the collection of such monies is not solely that of the County District Attorney since Act 84 vests such a prerogative in the correctional authorities ... to make deductions from an inmate’s account, and does not impose prior court authorization as a threshold condition.”
    1 later decision 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.