358 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Cain’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
December 1988
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Cruz · Keefer v. Byers · 262 Pa. Super. 540 - Commonwealth v. Gore · 322 Pa. Super. 249 - Commonwealth v. Bailey · 276 Pa. Super. 368 - Commonwealth v. Kjersgaard
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Prior declarations of a witness which are consistent with his present testimony may be admitted to corroborate his testimony at trial if impugned, expressly or impliedly, as the product of recent fabrication, particularly when improper influence of the witness is implicated. See Commonwealth v. Cruz, 489 Pa. 559 , 414 A.2d 1032 (1980). Commonwealth v. Clark, 355 Pa.Super. 200 , 512 A.2d 1282 (1986). As noted in Commonwealth v. Gore, 262 Pa.Super. 540, 550 , 396 A.2d 1302, 1307 (1978), “it is not necessary that the impeachment be explicit, i.e., that an actual allegation of recent fabrication be made, but only that a jury be able to reasonably infer that such is occurring.” See also Commonwealth v. Bailey, 322 Pa. Super. 249 , 469 A.2d 604 (1983); Commonwealth v. Kjersgaard, 276 Pa.Super. 368 , 419 A.2d 502 (1980).”
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.