Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 Pa. Super. 514 - Commonwealth v. Reddix

355 Pa. Super. 514 - Commonwealth v. Reddix’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

104 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably 415 Pa. Super. 252 - Commonwealth v. Lopez (1992), 392 Pa. Super. 100 - Commonwealth v. Fromal (1990)

104 state decisions

5701986199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth v. Goodwin · Commonwealth v. Darush · Commonwealth v. Stoyko · Commonwealth v. GOODMAN · Commonwealth v. Perry

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

  1. “we consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. (Citation omitted). Moreover, when the evidence viewed in this manner supports the factual finding of the suppression court this Honorable Court can reverse only if there is an error in the legal conclusion drawn from those factual findings.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “‘An arresting officer, in executing a valid arrest, may rely upon radio broadcasts emanating from police facilities provided, however, that the arresting officer has been either (1) ordered or directed to perform the arrest by an officer in possession of facts justifying the arrest; (2) received information justifying arrest; or (3) heard information which, coupled with facts he personally observed, provided probable cause to arrest. Commonwealth v. Gambit, 274 Pa.Super. 571, 577-578 , 418 A.2d 554, 557 (1980), affd., 501 Pa. 453 , 462 A.2d 211 (1983). Accord Commonwealth v. Prengle, 293 Pa.Super. 64, 67 , 437 A.2d 992, 994 (1981).’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[An appellate court’s] inquiry is a dual one — whether the officer[’s] action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Regarding the stop, a police officer may, short of an arrest, conduct an investigative detention if he has a reasonable suspicion, based upon specific and articulable facts, that criminality is afoot. The fundamental inquiry is an objective one, namely, whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of the [intrusion] warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that the action taken was appropriate. This assessment, like that applicable to the determination of probable cause, requires an evaluation of the totality of the circumstances, with a lesser showing needed to demonstrate reasonable suspicion in terms of both quantity or content and reliability.”
    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.