2003 Pa. Super. 395 - Commonwealth v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In the Mule · Commonwealth v. Gatling · 2003 Pa. Super. 57 - Commonwealth v. McNabb · 2001 Pa. Super. 196 - Commonwealth v. Ritchey · 2003 Pa. Super. 260 - Commonwealth v. Simpson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where an appellant challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence, there is no automatic right to appeal and an appellant’s appeal should be considered a petition for allowance of appeal. Before a challenge to a judgment of sentence will be heard on the merits, an appellant first must set forth in his or her brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of his or her sentence.”
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.