2010 Pa. Super. 68 - Commonwealth v. Selenski’s Empirical Analysis
2010
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 30
Relies on In re Oliver · Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California for County of Riverside
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he threshold consideration of whether there exists a common law or constitutional right of public access to a judicial proceeding raises a pure question of law. Our standard of review, therefore, is de novo , and our scope of review is plenary.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is well settled that an order that denies a request for public access to a criminal proceeding or judicial documents constitutes a collateral order from which an immediate appeal may be taken.”
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.