Commonwealth v. Deren’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently April 1996 · most notably 311 Pa. Super. 264 - Commonwealth v. Lapia (1983), 249 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Trefry (1977)
31 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 Frey v. United States · Commonwealth v. Bosurgi · 230 Pa. Super. 563 - Commonwealth v. Kloch · Commonwealth v. Blevins · Commonwealth v. Milliken
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We interpret this to mean that any time the Commonwealth alleges that its case will be either terminated and concluded or substantially prejudiced by a suppression order, we must review the suppression order only on its merits. Stated another way, when the District Attorney from one of the counties of this Commonwealth directs an appeal from the suppression of evidence, we must accept such an appeal as the Commonwealth’s good faith certification that the case will be terminated or substantially prejudiced by such an order, and determine only if the suppression was proper. To apply any other test could permanently exclude evidence even if it was improperly suppressed. Such a result is contrary to our function in this matter, which is to ascertain that all evidence received is proper and to insure that the rights of all parties are protected. The District Attorney, representing the people of this Commonwealth, and he alone, has the right and duty to present the Commonwealth’s case with all the legally available evidence that he, in his judgment, believes to be substantially necessary to the case. In the case of Commonwealth v. Rose, 211 Pa.Super. 295 , 235 A.2d 462 (1967), the Commonwealth appealed a suppression order and Judge Jacobs, writing for the majority, stated: ‘[sjince appellee has not filed a motion to quash, we will assume that the suppression order will substantially handicap the commonwealth and hear the appeal.’ 211 Pa.Super. at 296 , 235 A.2d at 463 . When we ar”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“An appellate review of the validity of the order of suppression cannot harm the defendant whereas the denial of the right to such review does harm the Commonwealth. Id., 233 Pa.Super. at 377 , 337 A.2d at 602 (emphasis added).”
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.