Commonwealth v. Trotman’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Bosurgi · 249 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Trefry · 254 Pa. Super. 5 - Commonwealth v. Kunkel · 248 Pa. Super. 516 - Commonwealth v. DeFelice · 259 Pa. Super. 201 - Commonwealth v. Martz
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n every case in which the Commonwealth appeals from an order suppressing evidence, the Commonwealth must include in its brief, in support of its claim that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, first, a statement that the suppression will terminate or substantially handicap the prosecution; and second, a brief explanation, not inconsistent with the record, why this is so.”
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.