272 Pa. Super. 50 - Commonwealth v. Ruff’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably 275 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Deluca (1980), Commonwealth v. Marchesano (1988)
29 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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · 234 Pa. Super. 31 - Commonwealth v. Davis · Commonwealth v. Duff · 248 Pa. Super. 552 - Commonwealth v. Holmes
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.
““ ‘ “(a) written notice of the claimed violations of [probation or] parole; (d) disclosure to [probationer or] parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a “neutral and detached” hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking [probation or] parole.”’ Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, [411 U.S.] at 786, [ 93 S.Ct. at 1761 ,] quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489 , [ 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 ] (1972) (emphasis added).” Id., 272 Pa.Super. at 57 , 414 A.2d at 667 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In determining whether the hearing has indeed been held with reasonable promptness, the length of time between the conviction and the hearing is not the sole determinative factor. Commonwealth v. Young, 262 Pa. Super. 253, 396 A.2d 741 (1978); Commonwealth v. Diaz, 258 Pa.Super. 346 , 392 A.2d 827 (1978); Commonwealth v. Waters, 252 Pa.Super. 357 , 381 A.2d 957 (1977); Commonwealth v. Jones, 250 Pa.Super. 116 , 378 A.2d 481 (1977). Rather, the critical issue is whether the delay was reasonable under the circumstances of the specific case, with such reasonableness being evaluated in the light of three factors: the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice suffered by-the defendant as a result of the delay. Commonwealth v. Young, supra; Commonwealth v. Waters, supra.”
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.