349 Pa. Super. 583 - Commonwealth v. Mourar’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2009 · most notably Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport (1990), Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp. (1986)
4 federal appellate · 63 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 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · 302 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Galloway · 267 Pa. Super. 504 - Commonwealth v. Fuqua · State v. Linam · United States v. Dudley
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Legislation authorizing the imposition of increased punishment on recidivists is directed at those who persist in criminality after having once been convicted of an offense. It is thus generally essential that the alleged conviction shall have preceded the date of the offense for which the increased punishment is sought to be imposed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) The previous conviction occurred within seven years of the date of the commission of the instant offense, except that any time during which the offender was incarcerated in any penitentiary, prison, or other place of detention shall not be considered in computing the relevant seven-year period.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“’‘[T]he order to make restitution has dual purposes: to rehabilitate the defendant and to provide some recompense to the victim. Commonwealth v. Fuqua, 267 Pa. Super. 504 , 407 A.2d 24 (1979). However, the primary concern in imposing a sentence of restitution is to promote the rehabilitation of the defendant and to impress upon him the responsibility he must accept for his actions. Id. at 508 , 407 A.2d at 26 . To accomplish this end, the court must ensure that the restitution exceeds neither the defendant’s ability to pay nor the victim’s damages. Id. “Where the defendant is sentenced to pay restitution, the court must conduct a hearing to establish a record to support the order of restitution. Commonwealth v. Valent, 317 Pa. Super. 145 , 463 A.2d 1127 (1983). The statute provides that the court ‘shall consider the extent of injury suffered by the victim and such other matters as it deems appropriate.’ 18 Pa.C.S. § 1106(c). In Fuqua , the court delineated the factors which the court should consider: ‘the extent of the injury suffered, the fact that the defendant’s action caused the injury and that he will be able to pay for it; and the type of payment — lump sum or installment — that will best serve the needs of the victim and the capabilities of the defendant.’ Fuqua, Id. at 510 , 407 A.2d at 27 , citations omitted. “Thus, in determining the defendant’s ability to pay an order of restitution, the court can consider the education, vocational training, and employment history ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.