Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2016 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Smith

2016 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 2010 Pa. Super. 204 - Commonwealth v. Rhoades · Commonwealth v. Dodge · 2014 Pa. Super. 102 - Commonwealth v. Buterbaugh · 390 Pa. Super. 426 - Commonwealth v. Burns · 417 Pa. Super. 340 - Commonwealth v. Bowen

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

  1. “When the court determines that the offender used a deadly weapon during the commission of the current conviction offense, the court shall consider the DWE/Used Matrix .... An offender has used a deadly weapon if any of the following were employed by the offender in a way that threatened or injured another individual: (i) Any firearm, ..., or (ii) Any dangerous weapon (as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 913 ), or (iii) Any device, implement, or instrumentality capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “used a deadly weapon if any of the following were employed by the offender in a way that threatened or injured another individual[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “instrumentality capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.”
    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.