2013 Pa. Super. 190 - Commonwealth v. Clarke’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Shiffler · 2013 Pa. Super. 70 - Commonwealth v. Griffin · 2006 Pa. Super. 183 - Commonwealth v. Malovich · 2010 Pa. Super. 128 - Commonwealth v. Mastromarino · 2007 Pa. Super. 134 - Commonwealth v. Paul
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.
“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; (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; and (4) whether the concise statement raises a substantial question that the sentence .is appropriate under the sentencing code.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 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
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.