Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 Pa. Super. 506 - Commonwealth v. Ardinger

2003 Pa. Super. 506 - Commonwealth v. Ardinger’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
July 2010
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Minerd · Commonwealth v. Cosnek · In re Nomination Petition of McMonagle · In re Nomination Petition of McMonagle · 2003 Pa. Super. 425 - Commonwealth v. O'Brien

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.

  1. ““We note in this case, where the evidence sought to be admitted did not concern a prior conviction, the Commonwealth did not seek to merely bring in a witness to describe the pending charges. Rather, in its offer of proof the Commonwealth asserted that the victim . . . would testily. In addition, the Commonwealth claimed it would offer the testimony of [the other child’s] mother. These witnesses will be available to the jury so their credibility can be judged and they will be subject to cross-examina tion which can include questions which will enable the jury to know that the charges against appellee in Maryland have not yet resulted in a conviction.” Id. at 1146 .”
    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.