Commonwealth v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In refusing appellant’s petition to dismiss the charges, the lower court stated that the appellant’s counsel had the duty to arrange for a preliminary hearing. This position is untenable. Rule 1100 mandates that it is the Commonwealth’s obligation to commence a trial no later than the prescribed time from the filing of a written complaint, unless excused upon a showing of due diligence. Rule 1100 is thereby consistent with prior case law which holds that it is the duty of the State to bring a defendant to trial. E. g., Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S.Ct. 2182 , 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972); Commonwealth v. Cardonick, 448 Pa. 322 , 292 A.2d 402 (1972). These cases recognize that the strategy of defense often calls for delay and that the right to a speedy trial is not to be honored only for the vigilant and the knowledgeable. See Barker v. Wingo, supra; Hodges v. United States, 408 F.2d 543 (8th Cir. 1969).” Id. 237 Pa.Super. at 456 , 352 A.2d at 99 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 247 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Lewis · 242 Pa. Super. 218 - Commonwealth v. McCafferty

2. ““At any time before trial, the defendant or his attorney may apply to the court for an order dismissing the charges with prejudice on the ground that this Rule has been violated.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 245 Pa. Super. 562 - Commonwealth v. Mitchell · Commonwealth v. McReynolds

3. “during his period of incarceration. Although the appellant may not have desired to be tried on the instant charges, his whereabouts were known by prosecutorial officers who could easily have arranged the appellant's presence at trial. I would reverse the judgment of sentence and discharge the appellant. NOTES [1] The 270th day after the complaint was filed was Dec. 27, 1974. [2] Notes of Testimony of the May 27, 1975, hearing on appellant's petition under Rule 1100 at 6. [3] The Official Comment to Rule 1100(d)(1) states that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 248 Pa. Super. 184 - Commonwealth v. Clark