260 Pa. Super. 62 - Commonwealth v. Bass’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 1990 · most notably State v. Hicks (1979), 305 Pa. Super. 340 - Commonwealth v. Wroten (1982)
25 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 Commonwealth v. Ray · 250 Pa. Super. 66 - Commonwealth v. Kovacs · 242 Pa. Super. 218 - Commonwealth v. McCafferty · 246 Pa. Super. 300 - Commonwealth v. Richbourgh · Commonwealth v. Wallace
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(c) At any time prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for an order extending the time for commencement of trial. A copy of such application shall be served upon the defendant through his attorney, if any, and the defendant shall also have the right to be heard thereon. Such application shall be granted only if trial cannot be commenced within the prescribed period despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Any order granting such application shall specify the date or period within which trial shall be commenced.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) Trial in a court case in which a written complaint is filed against the defendant after June 30, 1974 shall commence no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date on which the complaint is filed. (c)(1) At any time prior to the expiration of the period for commencement of trial, the attorney for the Commonwealth may apply to the court for an order extending the time for commencement of trial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule 1100(d)(1) provides that “[i]n determining the period for commencement of trial, there shall be excluded therefrom such period of delay at any stage of the proceedings as results from: (1) the unavailability of the defendant or his attorney.” Mere incarceration in another jurisdiction does not make appellant unavailable. Appellant will be considered unavailable only for the period of time during which his presence could not be secured despite due diligence by the Commonwealth. Commonwealth v. Richbourgh, 246 Pa.Super. 300 , 369 A.2d 1331 (1977); Commonwealth v. Kovacs, 250 Pa.Super. 66 , 378 A.2d 455 (1977). “There is no question, therefore, that the duty imposed on the Commonwealth by Rule 1100 to bring a defendant to trial within the prescribed period is not affected by the fact of his incarceration elsewhere. . . . ” Commonwealth v. McCafferty, 242 Pa.Super. 218, 224 , 363 A.2d 1239, 1241 (1976).”
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.