Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 Pa. Super. 302 - Commonwealth v. Smith

2002 Pa. Super. 302 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 2024
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2024

10 state decisions

60200220102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1320A (§ 1121 of the Social Security Act of 1935)

Relies on Commonwealth v. Edmunds · Styer v. Hugo · Schwartz v. Pennsylvania · Feist v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. · Kemmerer v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing

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

  1. “When we review the ruling of a suppression court, we must first ascertain whether its factual findings are supported by the record and whether the inferences and legal conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable. Where the defendant challenges an adverse ruling of the suppression court, we will consider only the evidence for the prosecution and whatever evidence for the defense that remains uncontradicted in the context of the whole record. If there is support on the record, we are bound by the facts as found by the suppression court, and we may reverse that court only if the legal conclusions drawn from these facts are in error. If there is sufficient evidence of record to support the suppression court’s ruling and that court has not misapplied the law, we will not substitute our credibility determination for that of the suppression court judge.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “An application for a search warrant was being drafted when the police observed the defendant leave the house, get into an automobile, and drive away. Police stopped the defendant, removed her from the vehicle, searched her purse, and discovered a gun, cash, and a drug tally sales sheet. After transporting the defendant to her home, police used her keys to gain access to the premises. Upon entering, police observed the defendant’s co-defendant holding a bag of cocaine. The police secured the scene and waited an hour for the arrival of a search warrant. Upon executing the search warrant, police discovered drugs, cash, and other evidence of narcotic trafficking.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a conclusion upon the question whether a death from external cause or violence was accidental, suicidal, or homicidal, may ordinarily be determined by a jury without the assistance of expert witnesses.”
    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.