314 Pa. Super. 65 - Commonwealth v. Walsh’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 335 Pa. Super. 560 - Commonwealth v. Garvin (1984), 327 Pa. Super. 253 - Commonwealth v. Beauford (1984)
32 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 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Schmerber v. State of California · Bumper v. North Carolina · United States v. Watson · Cooper v. State of California
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hether consent has been voluntarily given is a question of fact which must be determined in each case from the totality of the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“However, even if it were [inconsistent], it is always our prerogative to circumscribe governmental action more severely than the Federal Courts. In this precise context, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has said: “Constitutional rights may be protected by a state-court system which has developed its own method of testing the voluntariness of consent.” Tremayne v. Nelson, 537 F.2d 359 (9th Cir.1976). Justice Eagen wrote: “However, the state has the power to impose standards on searches and seizures higher than those required by the Federal Constitution. See Cooper v. State of California, 386 U.S. 58 , 87 S.Ct. 788 , 17 L.Ed.2d 730 (1967).” Commonwealth v. Harris, 429 Pa. 215 at 219, n. 2 , 239 A.2d 290 at 292 n. 2 (1968).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“At this point, it is [sic] to observe that the issue before us is quite distinct from that in Schneckloth . To say, as did Schneckloth , that one need not necessarily know of his right to refuse is not the equivalent of holding that one need not know what is being consented to is a search for criminal prosecution purposes, and not a test for medical treatment purposes. Thus, our decision here is not inconsistent with Schneckloth or other U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of the Fourth Amendment.”
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.