Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Jackson

2002 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2020

7 state decisions

30200220102020decided

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 New Jersey v. T. L. O. · Oliver v. United States · O'CONNOR v. Ortega · Mancusi v. DeForte · Town of Newton v. Rumery

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.

  1. “[T]he scope of evidence which a trial court may consider in determining whether to grant a pretrial writ of habe-as corpus is not limited to the evidence as presented at the preliminary hearing. On the contrary, ... the Commonwealth may present additional evidence at the habeas corpus stage in its effort to establish at least prima facie that a crime has been committed and that the accused is the person who committed it. ... In the pretrial setting, the focus of the habeas corpus hearing is to determine whether sufficient Commonwealth evidence exists to require a defendant to be held in government “custody” until he may be brought to trial. To make this determination, the trial court should accept into evidence the record from the preliminary hearing as well as any additional evidence which the Commonwealth may have available to further provide its prima facie case.”
    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.