2003 Pa. Super. 38 - Commonwealth v. Reefer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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. “Illness of prisoner; removal for treatment. Whenever any convict or person is confined in any jail, workhouse, reformatory, or reform or industrial school, penitentiary, prison, house of correction or any other penal institution, under conviction or sentence of a court, or is so confined while awaiting trial or confined for any other reason or purpose and it is shown to a court of record by due proof that such convict or person is seriously ill, and that it is necessary that he or she be removed from such penal institution, the court shall have power to modify its sentence, impose a suitable sentence, or modify the order of confinement for trial, as the case may be, and provide for the confinement or care of such convict or person in some other suitable institution where proper treatment may be administered. Upon the recovery of such person, the court shall recommit him or her to the institution from which he or she was removed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2012 Pa. Super. 63 - Commonwealth v. Folk

2. “By [Act 61’s] very terms and its historic context, .. .we find that the General Assembly intended that the language “modify its sentence” in [Act 61] refer to the modification of the place at which the sentence is being served. Our examination of the title under which [Act 61] falls reinforces our conclusion that [Act 61] refers to the place at which the sentence is being served and not to the length of the sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 265 - Commonwealth v. Kositi

3. “Under our parole system, the expiration of the minimum sentence merely allows a prisoner to be considered for parole. See Rogers v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285 , 724 A.2d 319 , 321 n. 2 (Pa.1999) (citations omitted). A prisoner otherwise has no entitlement to parole. See id. Parole, under these circumstances, is a matter of legislative grace vested in the discretion of the Parole Board.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 Pa. Super. 160 - Commonwealth v. Lee