Commonwealth v. Mumich’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 2007 · most notably Commonwealth v. Genovese (1981), Commonwealth v. Johnson (1979)
65 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
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(b) Substantive Defects: If a complaint, citation, summons or warrant contains a substantive défect, the defendant shall be discharged unless he waives the defect. Nothing in this rule shall prevent the filing of a new complaint or citation and the issuance of process in which the defect is corrected in a proper manner.” COMMENT: “Substantive defects would include those cases in which the defendant’s identity cannot be determined. . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e read Rule 1100 . . . as applying to complaints properly filed and not to defective complaints that are dismissed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under circumstances that defendant made no objection to dismissing of complaint on basis that signature of prosecutrix-affiant did not appear on the defendant’s copy, defendant acquiesced in dismissal rather than amendment to remedy the defect and could not thereafter attempt to take advantage of the ruling he in no .way opposed. Pa.R.Crim.P., Rules 132, 140, 150.” and “Under circumstances that no objection was voiced to dismissal of complaint charging fornication and bastardy on basis that signature of prosecutrix-affiant did not appear on the defendant’s copy, magistrate acted within his discretion in dismissing the complaint and discharging defendant, and the 270-day period for trial commenced to run from filing of new complaint. Pa.R.Crim.P., Rule 1100; 18 Pa.””
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.