Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 Pa. Super. 56 - Commonwealth v. Campbell

351 Pa. Super. 56 - Commonwealth v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2013 · most notably 391 Pa. Super. 418 - Commonwealth v. Pigg (1990), Commonwealth v. Foster (2011)

38 state decisions

1501986199020002010decided

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 Lefkowitz v. Newsome · Commonwealth v. Campana · Commonwealth v. Campana · Commonwealth v. Walker · Russell v. Douthitt

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

  1. “[t]he question of the legality of multiple sentences based on a claim that the convictions should have merged for sentencing, is not waived by the failure to raise it in the trial court. This is because multiple sentences for a single criminal act are unlawful and are beyond the power of the trial court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The merger doctrine does not ask us to adhere rigidly to a “same offense” test in searching for legislative intent. Nor, on the other hand, is it concerned exclusively with the physical facts that must be proven to make out various crimes. Instead, it obliges us to take a broader view of the purposes of criminal legislation and the diverse evils which particular enactments were meant to protect against____ In order to find that separate statutory offenses merge, we must therefore determine not only that the crimes arose out of the same criminal act, transaction, or episode, but also that the statutes defining the crimes charged were directed to substantially the same harm or evil. If we do not take both of these steps, we fail in our duty to effectuate the legislative mandate in carrying out statutory punishments.”
    1 later decision 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.