Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 278 Pa. Super. 39 - Commonwealth v. Thomas

278 Pa. Super. 39 - Commonwealth v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
November 2015
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably 297 Pa. Super. 444 - Commonwealth v. Bowermaster (1982), 323 Pa. Super. 512 - Commonwealth v. Williams (1984)

27 state decisions

2201980199020002010decided

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 Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Neil v. Biggers · Manson v. Brathwaite · Commonwealth v. Zapata

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

  1. “an outright substitution of a named co-conspirator in a complaint constitutes ‘a different set of events’ and could require ‘materially different defenses’ of the accused. A charge of conspiracy with one (person) to commit certain offenses must necessarily embrace a unique factual setting which is radically altered when the Commonwealth seeks to charge that appellant conspired with (a second person) and not (the first).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “considering the totality of the circumstances, the in-court identification had an independent origin sufficiently distinguishable from the illegal encounter so as to be purged of the primary taint.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Defects in Complaint, Citation, Summons or Warrant (a) Informal Defects: No person arrested under a warrant or appearing in response to a summons or citation shall be discharged from custody nor shall any case be dismissed because of any informal defects in the complaint, citation, summons, or warrant, but the complaint, citation, summons or warrant, may be amended at any time so as to remedy any such, informality. (b) Substantive Defects: If a complaint, citation, summons or warrant contains a substantive defect, the defendant shall be discharged unless he waives the defect. Nothing in this rule shall prevent the filing of a new complaint or citation and the issuance of process in which the defect is corrected in a proper manner.”
    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.