Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 247 Pa. Super. 513 - Commonwealth v. Olsen

247 Pa. Super. 513 - Commonwealth v. Olsen’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
1
states following
November 1992
most recently cited

64 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently November 1992 · most notably 344 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Williams (1985), 296 Pa. Super. 441 - Commonwealth v. Miranda (1982)

64 state decisions

350197719801990decided

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 Abbate v. United States · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Martin · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe

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.

  1. ““The true test of whether one criminal offense has merged in another is not (as is sometimes stated) whether the two criminal acts are ‘successive steps in the same transaction’ but it is whether one crime necessarily involves another, as for example, rape involves fornication, and robbery involves both assault and larceny. The ‘same transaction’ test is valid only when ‘transaction’ means a single act. When the ‘transaction’ consists of two or more criminal acts, the fact that the two acts are ‘successive’ does not require the conclusion that they have merged. Two crimes may be successive steps in one crime and therefore merge, as, é.g, larceny is merged in robbery, and assault and battery is merged in murder, or they may be two distinct crimes which do not merge.” (Emphasis in original)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “waives for purposes of appeal any issues which could have been included in the post-trial motions.”
    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.