314 Pa. Super. 244 - Commonwealth v. Dorian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “[T]hus in Zuber the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he Commonwealth concedes in its brief to this court ‘that under the law of Pennsylvania in effect at the time appellant was sentenced, neither a court nor the Parole Board had the power to order that a “hack time” and a “front time” sentence be served concurrently.’ ” 466 Pa. at 457 , 353 A.2d at 443 (emphasis added). By this statement the court recognized that Section 9761 of the Sentencing Code had changed the law by enabling the sentencing judge to direct that his sentence- — -the “front time” sentence — “is to run concurrently with one which has been previously imposed” — the “back time’’ sentence. (Emphasis in original.) Pa. -Superior Ct. at , 460 A.2d at 1124 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Pa. Commw. 558 - Rivera v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole

2. “Order of service of sentences. — If a minimum sentence imposed by the court which is to run concurrently with one which has been previously imposed would expire later than the minimum of such a previously imposed sentence, . . . the defendant shall be imprisoned at least until the last .imposed minimum sentence has been served.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 79 Pa. Commw. 558 - Rivera v. Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole