291 Pa. Super. 566 - Commonwealth v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2001 · most notably 340 Pa. Super. 318 - Commonwealth v. Hassine (1985), 372 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Douglass (1988)
51 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. Bosurgi · Commonwealth v. Futch · Commonwealth v. Scott · Commonwealth v. Logan · Commonwealth v. Coleman
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There may or may not have been an unnecessary delay between the time the appellant was arrested and the time he was preliminarily arraigned. Even if there was, however, that fact would not require a court to quash the appellant’s arrest. Where there has been such a delay, a court must suppress any evidence obtained as a result of the delay. Commonwealth v. Futch, 447 Pa. 389 , 290 A.2d 417 (1972). There is no requirement that an arrest be quashed for such a delay.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) has been discovered after the trial and could not have been obtained at or prior to the conclusion of the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence; (2) is not merely corroborative or cumulative; (3) will not be used solely for impeaching credibility of a witness; and (4) is of such nature and character that a different verdict will likely result if a new trial is granted.”
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.