348 Pa. Super. 439 - Commonwealth v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently February 2017
21 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 Coleman v. Alabama · Waller v. Georgia · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Gannett Co Inc v. A
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.
“We find it extremely unlikely that once the Commonwealth had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, it would fail to pass the prima facie test at the new preliminary hearing. If the new preliminary hearing somehow did yield a new result, it could only be that certain charges should be dropped, which could not warrant a new trial on those charges. Logically, a new preliminary hearing is foolish once the evidentiary trial is completed without reversible error.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Logically, a new preliminary hearing is foolish once the evidentiary trial is completed without reversible error____ We see no reason to believe that the constitutional infirmity of the preliminary hearing infected the remainder of the trial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[o]nly a compelling government interest justifies closure and then only by a means narrowly tailored to serve that interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re MB
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.