2002 Pa. Super. 369 - Commonwealth v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In Re Nomination of Flaherty · Fonner v. Shandon, Inc. · Commonwealth v. Phillips · Commonwealth v. Dickerson · Commonwealth v. Packer
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.
“Our Court’s “authority to review a sentence is governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781.” Commonwealth v. Archer, 722 A.2d 203, 209 (Pa.Super.1998)(en banc). “If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction.” Commonwealth v. Alexander, 811 A.2d 1064, 1065 (Pa.Super.2002), appeal denied, 573 Pa. 676 , 822 A.2d 703 (2003).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Unlike subsections (ii), (iii) and (iv) there is nothing in § 3731(e)(1) addressing whether or not a person was ‘previously ... convicted of [a DUI] offense ... within the previous seven years.’ ... For purposes of grading, the sentencing court is only being asked to count the number of DUI offenses resulting in convictions [as of] the time 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.