2003 Pa. Super. 475 - Commonwealth v. Ruby’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Skufca · 2002 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Cunningham · United Theatres of Florida, Inc. v. Gerstein · 2002 Pa. Super. 325 - Commonwealth v. Kohlie
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When reviewing a trial court’s decision to grant a habeas corpus petition, we will not reverse the trial court’s decision absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In order to constitute an abuse of discretion, the record must disclose that the trial court exercised manifestly unreasonable judgment or based its decision on ill will, bias or prejudice. Furthermore, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the Commonwealth has established a prima facie case. In criminal matters, a prima facie case is that measure of evidence which, if accepted as true, would justify the conclusion that the defendant committed the offense charged.”
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.