2017 Pa. Super. 274 - Commonwealth v. Kolovich’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
April 2020
most recently cited
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · Martin v. Ohio
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both the federal and state double jeopardy clauses are intended to protect defendants from subsequent prosecutions for the same act. The Pennsylvania Constitution's double jeopardy clause has been interpreted as "coextensive" with the federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Commonwealth v. Ball , [ 637 Pa. 100 ] 146 A.3d 755 , 763 ( [Pa.] 2016). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court applies the "same-elements" test articulated in Blockburger v. [ U.S. ], 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) ; Commonwealth v. Yerby , [ 544 Pa. 578 ] 679 A.2d 217 , 219 ( [Pa.] 1996). Under the same-elements test, each offense or subsequent prosecution must require proof of at least one fact that the other offense or prosecution did not. Blockburger , supra at 304 [ 52 S.Ct. 180 ]. Thus, the double jeopardy clause protects defendants from subsequent prosecutions for the same act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense”
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.