Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 365 Pa. Super. 613 - Commonwealth v. Sheaff

365 Pa. Super. 613 - Commonwealth v. Sheaff’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Commonwealth v. Metz (1993), 380 Pa. Super. 334 - Commonwealth v. Hewett (1988)

39 state decisions

2401987199020002010decided

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. Colson · 315 Pa. Super. 256 - Commonwealth v. Holmes · Commonwealth v. Maxwell · Commonwealth v. Upsher · Commonwealth v. Colon

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

  1. “To summarize and clarify our position in this case and the cases cited herein, we hold that permission must be requested and granted on Ike record before supplemental post-trial motions may be filed. Counsel may not simply reserve the right to file such motions by adding a notation to that effect in the original post-trial motions. In order to preserve the right to file supplemental motions after the transcript Is received, a request must be approved in advance in a timely fashion. If permission is granted, and supplemental motions are filed, an allegation that could have been raised without the need for a transcript is still considered to be waived.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “While a custom appears to have developed whereby counsel, in filing original and timely post-trial motions, reserves the right to file additional motions, nothing in the rules permits unilateral extension of time,' and in no event may supplemental motions be filed and heard nunc pro tunc unless filed in a reasonable time and with approval of the court.”
    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.