2008 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Rose’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Negron v. United States · Western and Southern Life Insurance Company v. State Board of Equalization of California · New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach · Kremer v. Grant · Tucker v. Wolter
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(а) Offense defined. — A person commits an offense if he is intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is within this Commonwealth: (1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses). (5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312 (relating to sexual abuse of children). (б) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The core concept in any standing analysis is that a person who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not ‘aggrieved’ thereby and has no standing to obtain a judicial resolution of his challenge.” Soc’y Hill Civic Ass’n v. Pa. Gaming Control Bd., 593 Pa. 1 , 928 A.2d 175, 184 (2007). Generally, in order to have standing a person must have a “substantial, direct, and immediate interest” in the outcome of the litigation. Id. A person does not have a direct interest if he has not been harmed by the specific constitutional concern at issue. Id.; see also Commonwealth v. Bell, 512 Pa. 334 , 516 A.2d 1172, 1177 (1986); Commonwealth v. Haldeman, 288 Pa. 81 , 135 A. 651, 652 (1927).”
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.