Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 Pa. Super. 34 - Commonwealth v. Dukeman

2007 Pa. Super. 34 - Commonwealth v. Dukeman’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 2022

6 state decisions

40200720102020decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · Commonwealth v. Gray · Rapanos v. United States · Commonwealth v. Ruey · 412 Pa. Super. 550 - Commonwealth v. Singleton

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

  1. “the 'customary' phrase that the informant has provided information which 'has in the past resulted in arrests or convictions'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hen two independent informants both supply the same information about a particular crime to the police, each source tends inherently to bolster the reliability of the other. Although the information supplied by one questionable source may be insufficient, the probability is extremely small that a second independent source would supply identical information if it were not probably accurate. Such corroboration by independent sources produces the necessary reliability to establish probable cause.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “had not provided information in the past that implicated anyone.”
    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.