264 Pa. Super. 535 - Commonwealth v. Tami’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1982
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Williams · 235 Pa. Super. 496 - Commonwealth v. Hickson · Commonwealth v. Taylor · Commonwealth v. Hooks · 259 Pa. Super. 118 - Commonwealth v. Laudenslager
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Appellants' [the defendants'] argument that their counsel's waiver of Rule 1100 was improper is clearly without merit . . . . No hearing is necessary to show that he had the best interest of his clients in mind when he sought or agreed to a continuance so that his motion to dismiss could be argued before trial and at a time he would be available. Commonwealth v. Laudenslager, 259 Pa.Super. 118 , 393 A.2d 745 (1978), presented a similar situation. Id., 264 Pa.Super. at 538 , 400 A.2d at 216 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In all cases the defendant may waive a jury trial with the consent of his attorney, if any, and approval by a judge of the court in which the case is pending, and elect to be tried by a judge without a jury. The judge shall ascertain from the defendant whether this is a knowing and intelligent waiver, and such colloquy shall appear on the record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“_ _ _ _ it is clear that appellants were not specifically given this information in the colloquy directed to them personally when the waiver was accepted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.