324 Pa. Super. 557 - Commonwealth v. Ritchie’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2005
19 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 Davis v. Alaska · Commonwealth v. Walzack · Commonwealth v. Slaughter · 282 Pa. Super. 431 - Commonwealth v. Niemetz · Commonwealth v. Hamm
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... counsel should be permitted access to this record in order to argue the relevance of the material in accordance with this decision. Counsel, of course, are permitted access to this record for this purpose only and are otherwise bound by the confidential nature of the material in the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In determining what information appellant is entitled to we are guided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding in Matter of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape, 494 Pa. 15 , 428 A.2d 126 (1981). The issue in that case was “the extent to which a court presiding over a rape trial may authorize counsel for the accused seeking to impeach the credibility of the complainant to inspect a rape crisis center file containing communications between the complainant and rape crisis center personnel.” 494 Pa. at 19 , 428 A.2d at 127 . The court there recognized the “societal interest” in promoting communications between rape crisis center personnel and persons seeking the center’s assistance, but it also recognized the “compelling societal interest in the truth-seeking function of our system of criminal justice.” 494 Pa. at 19 , 428 A.2d at 127 . In order to protect both interests, the court held that upon defense request, a trial court should authorize defense inspection of that portion of the crisis center’s file which reflects verbatim statements of the complainant bearing on the facts of the alleged offense. ... [W]e feel that the competing interests involved in Matter of Pittsburgh Action Against Rape are similar to those involved here and we are persuaded that the procedure adopted by the Supreme Court there should also be applied in the instant case. We hold, therefore, that appellant is entitled to inspect any portion of CWS’ files which reflects statements regarding abuse made by J”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we must accept as true all the evidence, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, upon which the factfinder could have based its verdict and then ask whether that evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth as verdict winner, was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
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.