Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 Pa. Super. 241 - Commonwealth v. Dorsey

328 Pa. Super. 241 - Commonwealth v. Dorsey’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 2018

18 state decisions

801984199020002010decided

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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Bearden v. Georgia · Commonwealth v. Riggins · 248 Pa. Super. 552 - Commonwealth v. Holmes · Commonwealth v. Pierce

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

  1. “We hold, therefore, that in revocation proceedings for failure to pay a fine or restitution, a sentencing court must inquire into the reasons for the failure to pay. If the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts legally to acquire the resources to pay, the court may revoke probation and sentence the defendant to imprisonment within the authorized range of its sentencing authority. If the probationer could not pay despite sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so, the court must consider alternate measures of punishment other than imprisonment. Only if alternate measures are not adequate to meet the State’s interests in punishment and deterrence may the court imprison a probationer who has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay. To do otherwise would deprive the probationer of his conditional freedom simply because, through no fault of his own, he cannot pay the fine. Such a deprivation would be contrary to the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment. (Footnote omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. . . [T]he issue as to whether parole or probation may be revoked for less than willful conduct has remained as an open question in Pennsylvania. (Footnote omitted.)”
    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.