317 Pa. Super. 88 - Commonwealth v. Beaver’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 340 Pa. Super. 318 - Commonwealth v. Hassine (1985), Commonwealth v. Simons (1987)
38 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Benton v. Maryland · Linkletter v. Walker · United States v. Jorn · North Carolina v. Butler
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reasons for adopting a non-retroactive application of Oregon to the case sub judice are: First, the decision in Oregon resulted in a “rule” being “adopted,” id. 456 U.S. at 678 n. 8, 102 S.Ct. at 2091 n. 8; Commonwealth v. Wallace, supra (Justice Nix’s Concurring Opinion), that narrowed the prior standard of review applicable to mistrials, i.e., overruled cases holding to the contrary. Second, because the purpose and effect of the present (“intent” only) rule of review is consistent with the pre- Oregon (“intent” or “bad faith”) standard, we do not find that its operation will be retarded if not applied retroactively. Third, appellant’s appeal having been perfected prior to the Oregon decision, we think, in weighing the equities, that “injustice or hardship” will be avoided by non-re-troactivity, i.e., the accused will have the benefit of having his claims scrutinized under the broader standard.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We find that the dual standard of (“intent” or “bad faith”) review first articulated with any degree of clarity in Commonwealth v. Starks [ 490 Pa.Super. 336 , 340, 416 A.2d 498, 500 (1980) ], supra, being premised upon federal case law that has been subsequently “clarified” (to one of “intent” only), is rendered somewhat suspect by Oregon v. Kennedy, supra. See generally Commonwealth v. Wallace [ 500 Pa.Super. 270 , 455 A.2d 1187 (1983)], supra (Justice Nix’s Concurring Opinion); Commonwealth v. Arelt [ 308 Pa.Super. 236 , 454 A.2d 108 (1982) ], supra.”
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.