247 Pa. Super. 476 - Commonwealth v. Erisman’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 1995 · most notably Commonwealth v. Beatty (1983), 282 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Bidner (1980)
31 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 Benton v. Maryland · Lefkowitz v. Newsome · Commonwealth v. Campana · Commonwealth v. Campana · Russell v. Douthitt
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.
“(1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction ... and the subsequent prosecution is for: !{; ‡ sjc if; (ii) any offense ... 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[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“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 . . . and the subsequent prosecution is for: (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....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“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; ____”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.