Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2009 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Rivera

2009 Pa. Super. 207 - Commonwealth v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2021

4 state decisions

20200920102020decided

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 Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones · 2005 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Jones · 2003 Pa. Super. 285 - Commonwealth v. Bullick · 161 Ind. App. 157 - Burgett v. State · Commonwealth v. Majeed

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

  1. “(a) Offense defined. — A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. [[Image here]] (c) Grading.— (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), burglary is a felony of the first degree. (2) If the building, structure or portion entered is not adapted for overnight accommodation and if no individual is present at the time of entry, burglary is a felony of the second degree.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Does not the specific language of the burglary statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502, which makes certain burglaries felonies of the second degree, require a verdict of second degree where a person breaks into and steals from the locked and inaccessible-to-residents basement of a building in which the basement is not designed for occupancy and is separately secured from any upstairs rental apartment, and therefore, was not the evidence insufficient to support the grading of the instant burglaries as felonies of the first degree?”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no individual is present at the time of entry.”
    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.