Commonwealth v. BRUNO’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently October 1995 · most notably 324 Pa. Super. 420 - Commonwealth v. Taylor (1984), Commonwealth v. Rice (1974)
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Lopez v. United States · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. United States · Reserve Life Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Even though a defective information is subject to review on a question of jurisdiction of the case or subject matter if brought in timely fashion, an indictment found regularly upon examination of witnesses will operate to correct any jurisdictional, as well as procedural, defects and irregularities in the information, warrant and proceedings before a magistrate. Commonwealth v. Brennan, 193 Pa. 567 , 44 A. 498 (1899). Furthermore, it is well settled that the defects and irregularities in the information, warrant and proceedings aforesaid are waived by pleading to the indictment and going to trial. Commonwealth ex rel. Lockhart v. Myers, 193 Pa.Super. 531 , 165 A.2d 400 (1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 860 , 82 S.Ct. 102 , 7 L.Ed.2d 57 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . Appellants contend that they were denied a substantial right, viz., the right to challenge the array of the January, 1961 grand jury, since they did not have notice of the fact that it was to consider the matters. However, they made no effort to challenge the array of the grand jury prior to trial, and they have not set forth in what manner they have been prejudiced . . . Therefore, in the present case, in the absence of any prejudice being shown and any attempt being made to challenge the array of the January, 1961 grand jury, we also must hold this contention to be without merit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““a pretense of official right to do an act, made by one who has no such right; the use of official authority as a pretext or cover for the commission of some corrupt or vicious act; an act wrongfully done by an officer under the pretended authority of his office.” Commonwealth v. Bruno, 203 Pa.Super. 541, 560 , 201 A.2d 434 , allocatur refused, 203 Pa. Super, xxxiii (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 965 , 85 S.Ct. 656 , 13 L.Ed.2d 558 (1965), quoting Commonwealth v. Channing, 55 Pa.Super. 510, 516 (1914).”
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.