Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 223 PASUPER 258 - Commonwealth v. Field

Commonwealth v. Field’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1997

13 state decisions

80197219801990decided

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 Leary v. United States · Yates v. United States · Stromberg v. People of State of California · Williams v. State of North Carolina · National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc.

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

  1. “[T]he Commonwealth contends that it is proper to set forth several assignments of perjury in the same count. This is true so long as the assignments arise from a single act or transaction or do not relate to separately provable matters; otherwise the indictment should be quashed. Commonwealth v. Field, 223 Pa.Super. 258, 265 , 298 A.2d 908, 912 (1972) (emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The two-witness rule, as it is applied in Pennsylvania, requires that the falsity element of a perjury conviction be supported either by the direct testimony of two witnesses or by the direct testimony of one witness plus corroborating evidence. 223 Pa. at 262, 298 A.2d at 911 (emphasis supplied).”
    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.