Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2013 Pa. Super. 142 - Commonwealth v. Edwards

2013 Pa. Super. 142 - Commonwealth v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority · 2013 Pa. Super. 70 - Commonwealth v. Griffin · 2000 Pa. Super. 151 - Commonwealth v. Sierra · 2010 Pa. Super. 204 - Commonwealth v. Rhoades · 2001 Pa. Super. 77 - Commonwealth v. Coolbaugh

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

  1. “Before we reach the merits of this issue, we must engage in a four part analysis to .determine: (1) whether the appeal is timely; (2) whether Appellant preserved his issue [at sentencing or in a motion to reconsider and modify sentence]; (3) whether Appellant’s brief includes a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence [as required by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2119(f)]; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence is appropriate under the sentencing code. The third and fourth of these requirements arise because Appellant’s attack on his sentence is not an appeal as of right. Rather, he must petition this Court, in his [Rule 2119(f)] concise statement of reasons, to grant consideration of his appeal on the grounds that there is a substantial question. [I]f the appeal satisfies each of these four requirements, we will then proceed to decide the substantive merits of the case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A substantial question exists only when the appellant advances a colorable argument that the sentencing judge's actions were either: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”
    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.