2004 Pa. Super. 69 - Commonwealth v. Miles’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Hickman · Commonwealth v. Rush · Commonwealth v. Weiss · 297 Pa. Super. 216 - Commonwealth v. Lee
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the error did not prejudice the defendant or the prejudice was de minim-is; or (2) the erroneously admitted evidence was merely cumulative of other, untainted evidence which was substantially similar to the erroneously admitted evidence; or (3) the properly admitted and uncontradicted evidence of guilt was so overwhelming and the prejudicial effect of the error was so insignificant by comparison that the error could not have contributed to the verdict.”
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.