2011 Pa. Super. 158 - Commonwealth v. Poland’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Briggs · Commonwealth v. Kennedy · 396 Pa. Super. 436 - Commonwealth v. French · 2006 Pa. Super. 331 - Commonwealth v. Leverette
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If no statutory authorization exists for a particular sentence, that sentence is illegal and subject to correction. An illegal sentence must be vacated. In evaluating a trial court’s application of a statute, our standard of review is plenary and is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law.”
2 later decisions 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.