Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2006 Pa. Super. 45 - Commonwealth v. Hartle

2006 Pa. Super. 45 - Commonwealth v. Hartle’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2025

17 state decisions

60200620102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Com., Dept. of Transp. v. O'CONNELL · Commonwealth v. Mouzon · Commonwealth v. Mudrick · 2006 Pa. Super. 17 - Commonwealth v. Fullin

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(2) Level 2 — Level 2 provides sentence recommendations for generally non-violent offenders and those with numerous less serious prior convictions, such that the standard range requires a county sentence but permits both incarceration and non-confínement. The standard range is defined as having an upper limit of less than 12 months and a lower limit of Restorative Sanctions (RS). The primary purposes of this level are control over the offender and restitution to victims. Treatment is recommended for drug dependent offenders. The following sentencing options are available: Total confinement in a county facility under a county sentence (see 61 P.S. § 331.17). Partial confinement in a county facility County Intermediate Punishment (see § 303.12(a) for eligibility criteria) Restorative Sanctions (§ 303.9(f))”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, an appellate court must view all the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner and must determine whether the evidence was such as to enable a fact finder to find that all of the elements of the offense[ ] were established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “free to believe all, part or none of the evidence.”
    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.