Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Owens

321 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
January 2013
most recently cited

44 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Commonwealth v. Anthony (1984), 376 Pa. Super. 493 - Commonwealth v. Vance (1988)

44 state decisions

2201983199020002010decided

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 Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Cogdell v. United States · Commonwealth v. Starr · Commonwealth v. Shaffer · Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District

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

  1. “A witness who has any reasonable basis of special knowledge on a subject may testify [as an expert]. Rutter v. Northeastern Beaver County School District, 496 Pa. 590 , 437 A.2d 1198 (1981). Under Pennsylvania law, a physician may testify as an expert in a field outside his own specialty. Arnold v. Loose, 352 F.2d 959 (3d C.1965), reh. den. (construing Pennsylvania law in an action brought under the Wrongful Death and Survival Acts). Once an expert shows some factual basis for his opinion, his testimony is admissible. Kravinsky v. Glover, 263 Pa.Super. 8 , 396 A.2d 1349 (1979); Commonwealth v. Oates, 269 Pa.Super. 157 , 409 A.2d 112 (1979). A physician need not have any field of specialization in order to be competent to offer expert testimony. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board v. Branch Motor Express, 18 Pa.Commw. 262, 334 A.2d 847 (1975).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) Does the defendant understand the nature of the charges to which he is pleading guilty? (2) Is there a factual basis for the plea? (3) Does the defendant understand that he has the right to trial by jury? (4) Does the defendant understand that he is presumed innocent until he is found guilty? (5) Is the defendant aware of the permissible range of sentences and/or fines for the offenses charged? (6) Is the defendant aware that the judge is not bound by the terms of any plea agreement tendered unless the judge accepts such agreement?”
    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.