2003 Pa. Super. 29 - Commonwealth v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 2025
12 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 Illinois v. Gates · Marron v. United States · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · Licht v. Texas Commerce Bank · Commonwealth v. Grant
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.
“a warrant must name or describe with particularity the property to be seized and the person or place to be searched.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“To prevail on a claim alleging counsel’s ineffectiveness under the PCRA, [ajppel-lant must demonstrate (1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel’s course of conduct was without any reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interest; and (3) that he was prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness; i. e., there is a reasonable probability that but for the act or omission in question the outcome of the proceeding would have been different.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Before an issuing authority may issue a constitutionally valid search warrant, he or she must be furnished with information sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that probable cause exists to conduct a search. The information offered to demonstrate probable cause must be viewed in a common sense, nontechnical, ungrudging and positive manner. It must also be remembered that probable cause is based on a finding of the probability, not a prima facie showing of criminal activity, and that deference is to be accorded a magistrate’s finding of probable cause. Hearsay information is sufficient to form the basis of a warrant so long as the magistrate has been provided with sufficient information to make a “neutral” and “detached” decision about whether there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of the reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a “substantial basis for concluding that probable cause existed.” Commonwealth v. Baker, 532 Pa. 121 , 615 A.2d 23, 25 (1992)(quoting Commonwealth v. Gray, 509 Pa. 476 , 503 A.2d 921 (1985))(citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 [ 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983)).”
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.