Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 252 Pa. Super. 66 - Commonwealth v. Whitman

252 Pa. Super. 66 - Commonwealth v. Whitman’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
January 1995
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 1995 · most notably Hall v. State (1981), 255 Pa. Super. 265 - Commonwealth v. Chapman (1978)

29 state decisions

170197719801990decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Commonwealth v. Kloiber · Smith v. Westchester County Bar Ass'n · Commonwealth v. Kichline · Commonwealth v. Yount

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

  1. “police questioning or conduct which is calculated to, expected to, or likely to evoke admissions”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The weight to be given to identification testimony is for the trier of fact. Commonwealth v. Donald, 227 Pa.Su per. 407, 323 A.2d 67 (1974). Anderson offered an explanation for the discrepancies in his identifications, which was also for the jury’s evaluation. Such a discrepancy may affect the witness’s credibility. Clearly, however, it does not affect the admissibility of testimony and does not require an instruction that the jury disbelieve the witness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[ejvery unwise or irrelevant remark made in the course of a trial by a judge, a witness, or counsel does not compel the granting of a new trial. [The remark must be] of such a nature or substance or delivered in such a manner that it may reasonably be said to have deprived the defendant of a fair and impartial trial.”
    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.