320 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Pittman’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 340 Pa. Super. 318 - Commonwealth v. Hassine (1985), 364 Pa. Super. 521 - Commonwealth v. Gordon (1987)
50 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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · 22 Cal. 3d 258 - People v. Wheeler · California v. Arizona · Commonwealth v. Clair
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘[t]he trial judges of this Commonwealth exercise broad powers while presiding at the trial of cases assigned to them. These powers include ruling on the admission or exclusion of evidence and controlling the scope of examination or cross-examination of witnesses. Such matters are committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.’ ... Commonwealth v. Pittman, 320 Pa. Super. 166, 172-173 , 466 A.2d 1370, 1373 (1983) (citation omitted). Decisions regarding such matters will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. Commonwealth v. Sisco, 484 Pa. 85 , 398 A.2d 955 (1979); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 336 Pa.Super. 609 , 486 A.2d 431 (1984).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n determining whether or not the trial judge has palpably abused his discretion, we should bear in mind that it is necessary to establish more than a mere error of judgment. It is only if we determine that the “law is overriden or misapplied, or the judgment exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality, prejudice, bias or ill-will, as shown by the evidence or the record, [that] discretion is abused.” Commonwealth v. Niemetz, 282 Pa.Super. at 445 n. 12, 422 A.2d at 1376 n. 12, quoting, Man O’War Racing Association Inc. v. State Horse Racing Commission, 433 Pa. 432 , 451 n. 10, 250 A.2d 172 , 181 n. 10 (1969), quoting, Mielcuszny v. Rosol, 317 Pa. 91, 93-94 , 176 A. 236, 237 (1934).”
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.