Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2008 Pa. Super. 276 - Commonwealth v. Williamson

2008 Pa. Super. 276 - Commonwealth v. Williamson’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently August 2025

12 state decisions

70200820102020decided

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 280 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Benson · 268 Pa. Super. 168 - Commonwealth v. Boerner · Commonwealth v. McGinnis · 2007 Pa. Super. 26 - Commonwealth v. Etchison · 345 Pa. Super. 187 - Commonwealth v. Burdge

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

  1. “(d) Controlled substances — An individual may not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a vehicle under any of the following circumstances: (2) The individual is under the influence of a drug or combination of drugs to a degree which impairs the individual’s ability to safely drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of the vehicle.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review and consider only the evidence from the defendant’s witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecution that, when read in the context of the entire record, remains uncontradicted. The suppression court’s findings of fact bind an appellate court if the record supports those findings. The suppression court’s conclusions of law, however, are not binding on an appellate court, whose duty is to determine if the suppression court properly applied the law to the facts.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.