244 Pa. Super. 33 - Commonwealth v. Rick’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Commonwealth v. McBride (1991), Commonwealth v. Prado (1978)
72 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 Coleman v. Alabama · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle · 181 Pa. Super. 382 - Commonwealth v. O'BRIEN · 234 Pa. Super. 146 - Commonwealth v. Miller · Commonwealth v. Smith
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, at the preliminary hearing, it had been clearly established that the Commonwealth would be able to produce only hearsay evidence at trial, the result in this case might be different. Under those circumstances a district justice could justifiably conclude that submitting the case to the grand jury would be a waste of time. Here, however, there was nothing to indicate to the district justice that the Commonwealth would not be able to produce the chemist himself at trial. The Commonwealth explained to the district justice that the chemist, Dr. Griswold, was out of town for the week. Dr. Griswold was available for appellant’s trial and did in fact testify.” Rick at 36 , 366 A.2d at 304 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The distinction between a preliminary hearing and the trial itsélf is well settled. While a trial determines guilt or innocence, the “preliminary hearing is held primarily to prevent the detention of a person for a crime which was never committed or of a crime with which there is no evidence of his connection.” ****** The question at a preliminary hearing is not whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, the question is whether the prosecution must be dismissed because there is nothing to indicate that the defendant is connected with a crime.”
2 later decisions 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.