Commonwealth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably State v. Knight (2003), 298 Pa. Super. 283 - Commonwealth v. Wanamaker (1982)
29 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 Dunn v. United States · Commonwealth v. Williams · Steckler v. United States · United States v. Maybury · Commonwealth v. Carter
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.
““The rule in Pennsylvania remains that a judge does possess the power to render such verdicts. [Citations omitted.] To deny judges that power would be to reduce the desirability of trial by a judge alone. We have consistently held that a decision by a judge without a jury has the same efficacy as a jury verdict. “Non-jury trials have worked very well in our system and have contributed to the reduction of case loads and the saving of considerable tax money. We should not weaken the non-jury trial system.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"4. Thus, the problem in the instant case is distinguishable from that addressed in Commonwealth v. Conti, 236 Pa.Super. 488 , 345 A.2d 238 (1975). In Conti , we held that a judge should be treated in the same manner as a jury if the judge, sitting as a trier of fact, heard inadmissible evidence that would have required a mistrial had a jury been present. We rejected the underlying rationale that a judge was able to ignore such evidence while a jury could not."”
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.