2017 Pa. Super. 245 - Commonwealth v. Grays’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “Sentencing is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing judge, and a sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a manifest abuse of discretion. In this context, an abuse of discretion is not shown merely by an error in judgment. Rather, the appellant must establish, by reference to the record, that the sentencing court ignored or misapplied the law, exercised its judgment for reasons of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill will, or arrived at a manifestly unreasonable decision.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Foust · Commonwealth v. Ali

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.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Foust · Commonwealth v. Ali

3. “The determination of what constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Foust · Commonwealth v. Ali