Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 PASUPER 330 - Commonwealth v. Peluso

Commonwealth v. Peluso’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
April 1995
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 1995

21 state decisions

90197619801990decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Ciuzio v. United States · Lefkowitz v. Newsome · Commonwealth v. Campana

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

  1. ““We do not believe that Campana [Commonwealth v. Campana, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 (1977)] or Section 110(l)(ii) of the Crimes Code requires a prosecution to charge an accused with an offense at a time when the prosecution only suspects that the offense has been committed and has not uncovered any admissible evidence by a good faith investigation which would support a conviction for that offense.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““§110. When prosecution barred by former prosecution for different offense “Although a prosecution is for a violation of a different provision of the statutes than a former prosecution or is based on different facts, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is for: (i) any offense of which the defendant could have been convicted on the first prosecution,; (ii) any offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, if such offense was known to the appropriate prosecuting officer at the time of the commencement of the first trial and was within the jurisdiction of a single court unless the court ordered a separate trial of the charge of such offense; or (iii) the same conduct, unless: (A) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (B) the second offense was not consummated when the former trial began.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““Whoever buys, has, or receives any goods, chattels, money or securities, or any other matter or thing, which shall have been stolen or feloniously taken, knowing, or having reasonable cause to know the same to have been stolen or feloniously taken, is guilty of a felony . . . Act of June 24, 1939, P.L. 872, § 817, 18 P.S. § 4817, superseded by Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3925.”
    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.