2008 Pa. Super. 106 - Commonwealth v. Griffith’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2011
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Bradley · Commonwealth v. Kriston · Commonwealth v. Kyle · Commonwealth v. Wegley · Commonwealth v. Koskey
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Initially, we note that ‘[i]f no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated.’ Commonwealth v. Kinney, 111 A.2d 492, 494 (Pa.Super.2001) (citations omitted). In analyzing a trial court’s application of a statute, our standard of review is plenary and limited to determining whether the court committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Bradley, 575 Pa. 141 , 149 n. 2, 834 A.2d 1127 , 1131 n. 2 (2003). When interpreting a statute, ‘[w]ords and phrases shall be construed to rales of grammar and according to their common and approved usage[.]’ 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1903(a). This Court cannot disregard the plain words of a statute when the language is free and clear from all ambiguities. 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b).”
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.