352 Pa. Super. 144 - Commonwealth v. Mattis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. ““Although the Commonwealth, in seeking to appeal from the discretionary aspects of the sentence imposed in this case, properly initiated the appeal by the filing of a notice as required by Pa.R.A.P. 902, before proceeding to the merits of the issue raised therein, we must first determine whether or not there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under the Sentencing Guidelines.” Commonwealth v. Days, 349 Pa. Super. 188, 192 , 502 A.2d 1339, 1341 (1986); see also, Commonwealth v. Fluellen, 345 Pa.Super. 167, 170 , 497 A.2d 1357, 1358 (1985); Commonwealth v. Dixon, 344 Pa.Super. 293 , 496 A.2d 802 (1985); Commonwealth v. Drumgoole, 341 Pa.Super. 468 , 491 A.2d 1352 (1985).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 362 Pa. Super. 129 - Commonwealth v. Rizzo

2. “(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. (2) The opportunity of the sentencing court to observe the defendant, including any presentence investigation. (3) The findings upon which the sentence was based. (4) The guidelines promulgated by the Commission. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9781(d).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 362 Pa. Super. 129 - Commonwealth v. Rizzo