Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 323 Pa. Super. 512 - Commonwealth v. Williams

323 Pa. Super. 512 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably In the Interest of L.J. (2013), 333 Pa. Super. 85 - Commonwealth v. Shirey (1984)

31 state decisions

1901984199020002010decided

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 United States v. Wade · Stovall v. Denno · Manson v. Brathwaite · Commonwealth v. Scott · Commonwealth v. Chacko

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

  1. “The signature requirement of the Judicial Code, supra, is designed to assure the authenticity of an information and to guarantee that the district attorney has inquired fully into all facts and circumstances attendant to a particular case and has made a reasoned evaluation of the propriety of initiating criminal proceedings against a defendant. Commonwealth v. Levenson, supra, See, also Commonwealth v. Emanuel, 501 Pa. 581 , 462 A.2d 653 (1983). We fail to perceive how these goals would be furthered in the instant case by quashing the information and discharging appellant simply because the Commonwealth filed the required designation of authority in a tardy manner. 323 Pa.Superior Ct. at 519-520, 470 A.2d at 1380 .”
    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.