Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2004 Pa. Super. 403 - Commonwealth v. LeBar

2004 Pa. Super. 403 - Commonwealth v. LeBar’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently March 2021

10 state decisions

60200420102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on 452 Pa. Super. 508 - Commonwealth v. Larsen · 1999 Pa. Super. 323 - Kmonk-Sullivan v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Harding v. Stickman · Boyd v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections · 2002 Pa. Super. 408 - Commonwealth v. Walters

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. “(a) Imposition. (1) A person who .pleads guilty or nolo contendere or who, is convicted of a crime shall, in addition to costs imposed under 42 Pa.C.S. § 3571(c) (relating to Commonwealth portion of fines, etc.), pay costs, of at least $60 and may be sentenced to pay additional costs in an amount up to the statutory maximum monetary penalty for the offense committed. (b) Disposition. (1) There is established a spécial non-lapsing fund, known: as the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund. This fund shall be used by the Office of Victims’ Services for payment to claimants and technical assistance. Thirty-five dollars of the costs' imposed under, subsection (a)(1) and (2) plus 30% of the costs imposed under subsection (a)(1) which exceed $60 shall be paid into this fund. All costs imposed under subsection (a)(3) shall be paid into.this fund. (c)Payment. This cost shall be imposed notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary. (e) Court order. No court order shall be necessary in order for the defendant to incur liability .for costs under this section. Costs under this section must be paid in order for the defendant tó be eligible for probation, parole or accelerated rehabilitative disposition.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]e need look no further than the language of Act 84, which provides the “procedural mechanism for the collection of court costs and fines.” [Harding v. Stickman, 823 A.2d 1110, 1112 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003).] The Act vests authority in DOC to collect on court-assessed costs, fines, and restitution. [See] 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5). What, on its plain language, Act 84 most assuredly does not do, is vest in the clerks of courts of the counties of this Commonwealth the fundamentally judicial authority to assess costs in the first instance against parties where costs have not been explicitly provided for in that party’s sentencing order. Indeed, the section permitting DOC to collect court-ordered costs could not be more clear on this point: “The county correctional facility to which the offender has been sentenced or the Department of Corrections shall be authorized to make monetary deductions from inmate personal accounts for the purpose of collecting restitution or any other court-ordered obligation.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 9728(b)(5) (emphasis added); [see Boyd v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrs., 831 A.2d 779, 783 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) ] “( [T]he Department [of Corrections] is authorized to make monetary deductions from an inmate’s personal account for the purposes of collecting restitution, as well as fines and costs, which were imposed by the sentencing court ....”); [see also Commonwealth v. Larsen], 452 Pa.Super. 508 , 682 A.2d 783, 794-95 (1996) (discussing generally the ways in which a court order”
    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.