Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 317 Pa. Super. 362 - Commonwealth v. Mathis

317 Pa. Super. 362 - Commonwealth v. Mathis’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
4
states following
December 2015
most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably 324 Pa. Super. 420 - Commonwealth v. Taylor (1984), 414 Pa. Super. 442 - Commonwealth v. Scullin (1992)

55 state decisions

2601983199020002010decided

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. Roux · 302 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Galloway · 267 Pa. Super. 504 - Commonwealth v. Fuqua · Commonwealth v. Silver · Commonwealth v. Miller

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

  1. “(b) Direction to file statement of matters complained of. If the lower court is uncertain as to the basis for the appeal, the lower court may by order direct the appellant forthwith to file a record in the lower court and serve on the trial judge a concise statement of the matters complained of on the appeal. A failure to comply with such direction may be considered by the appellate court as a waiver of all objections to the order, ruling or other matter complained of. Pa.R.A.P., Rule 1925(b), 42 Pa.C. S.A.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “By ‘illegality of sentence’ is meant that the sentence is, in and of itself defective: for instance, the offenses merged for purposes of sentencing ... or the court improperly sentenced the defendant as if he were convicted of an offense of a higher degree than he actually was ... or the sentence exceeded the permissible maximum. (Citations omitted.)”
    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.