Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2008 Pa. Super. 33 - Commonwealth v. Riley

2008 Pa. Super. 33 - Commonwealth v. Riley’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Com. v. Ferguson · Com. v. Hernandez · 579 F. Supp. 276 - United States v. Ciotti · 2003 Pa. Super. 213 - Commonwealth v. Mayfield · 2005 Pa. Super. 336 - Commonwealth v. Hernandez

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

  1. “The decision to allow or deny a remission of bail forfeiture lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Accordingly, our review is limited to a determination of whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to vacate the underlying forfeiture order. To establish such an abuse, the aggrieved party must show that the court misapplied the law, exercised manifestly unreasonable judgment,- or acted on the basis of bias, partiality, or ill-will to that party’s detriment. If a trial court erred in its application of the law, an appellate court will correct the error. Our scope of review on questions of law is plenary.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Here, the Commonwealth has not shown any cost specific to Riley’s failure to appear since he was timely tried, convicted, and sentenced, and Appellant achieved a speedy apprehension and return of him once it knew of his disappearance .... Further, these are no more than the “nominal” costs associated with any new criminal activity and are not sufficient to meet the cost/prejudice prong of the Mayfield test.”
    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.