2003 Pa. Super. 423 - Commonwealth v. Pantano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “.. .of a compelling reason to hold the trial in Appellant’s absence with due regard to the inherent prejudice arising from trials in absentia.” [FN1 of Pantano opinion — "In this regard, it is noted that other remedies were available to the trial court before resort to the drastic remedy of a trial in absentia. For example, a bench warrant could have been issued to secure Appellant’s appearance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Cortez

2. “The trial court has the discretion to grant or deny a request for a continuance. Such grant or denial will be reversed only on a showing of an abuse of discretion. Discretion is abused when the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias, or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 126 - Commonwealth v. Smith

3. “.. .of a compelling reason to hold the trial in Appellant’s absence with due regard to the inherent prejudice arising from trials in absentia.” [FN1 of Pantano opinion —”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Cortez