2012 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Kouma’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
12 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (§ 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter)) · 8 U.S.C. § 1227 (§ 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (McCarran-Walter))
Relies on Commonwealth v. Fletcher · Street Road Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board · 2008 Pa. Super. 122 - Stumpf v. Nye · 2009 Pa. Super. 20 - Commonwealth v. Page · 2011 Pa. Super. 42 - Commonwealth v. Hoover
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“However, [e]vidence will not be prohibited merely because it is harmful to the defendant. [E]xclusion is limited to evidence so prejudicial that it would inflame the jury to make a decision based on something other than the legal propositions relevant to the case.... This Court has stated that it is not required to sanitize the trial to eliminate all unpleasant facts from the jury's consideration where those facts are relevant to the issues at hand[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis or to divert the jury's attention away from its duty of weighing the evidence impartially.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“such evidence may still be excluded where its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
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.