2006 Pa. Super. 183 - Commonwealth v. Malovich’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 2010 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Moury (2010), 2007 Pa. Super. 48 - Commonwealth v. Hardy (2007)
41 state decisions
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 Commonwealth v. Mouzon · 2006 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Shugars · 2000 Pa. Super. 151 - Commonwealth v. Sierra · 2004 Pa. Super. 143 - Commonwealth v. McAfee · 2005 Pa. Super. 199 - Commonwealth v. Hyland
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before we reach the merits of this [issue], we must engage in a four part analysis to determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code. The third and fourth of these requirements arise because Appellant’s attack on his sentence is not an appeal as of right. Rather, he must petition this Court, in his concise statement of reasons, to grant consideration of his appeal on the grounds that there is a substantial question. Finally, if the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the substantive merits of the case.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“(c) Limitation on sentence of total confinement. The court shall not impose a sentence of total confinement upon revocation unless it finds that: (1) the defendant has been convicted of another crime; or (2) the conduct of the defendant indicates that it is likely that he will commit another crime if he is not imprisoned; or (3)such a sentence is essential to vindicate the authority of the court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.”
3 later decisions 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.