Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 362 Pa. Super. 580 - Commonwealth v. Anneski

362 Pa. Super. 580 - Commonwealth v. Anneski’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably 454 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Tizer (1996), 400 Pa. Super. 79 - Commonwealth v. Hudgens (1990)

41 state decisions

19019871990200020102020decided

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. Jackson · 310 Pa. Super. 39 - Commonwealth v. Griffin · Commonwealth v. Roman · Commonwealth v. Nichols · Commonwealth v. Waldman

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

  1. “§ 2706. Terroristic threats A person is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree if he threatens to commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another or to cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation, or otherwise to cause serious public inconvenience, or in reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`tried to run over her kids anymore at the bus stop', ... Anneski would bring a gun and use it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “spur-of-the-moment threat resulting from transitory anger”
    2 later decisions 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.