Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 366 Pa. Super. 328 - Commonwealth v. Tilghman

366 Pa. Super. 328 - Commonwealth v. Tilghman’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
April 1994
most recently cited

30 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. St. Joe Minerals Corp., Zinc Smelting Division · 349 Pa. Super. 583 - Commonwealth v. Mourar · Green v. Milk Control Commission · Murphy v. Commonwealth · 341 Pa. Super. 217 - Commonwealth v. Duffy

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

  1. “[f]ailure to comply [with the contemporaneous writing requirement of § 9721(b) ] shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing defendant.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(b) Allowance of appeal. — The defendant or the Commonwealth may file a petition for allowance of appeal of the discretionary aspects of a sentence for a felony or a misdemeanor to the appellate court that has initial jurisdiction for such appeals. Allowance of appeal may be granted at the discretion of the appellate court where it appears that there is a substantial question that the sentence imposed is not appropriate under this chapter. (c) Determination on appeal. — The appellate court shall vacate the sentence and remand the case to the sentencing court with instructions if it finds: (1) the sentencing court purported to sentence within the sentencing guidelines but applied the guidelines erroneously; (2) the sentencing court sentenced within the sentencing guidelines but the case involves circumstances where the application of the guidelines would be clearly unreasonable; or (3) the sentencing court sentenced outside the sentencing guidelines and the sentence is unreasonable. In all other cases the appellate court shall affirm the sentence imposed by the sentencing court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 2154. Adoption of guidelines for sentencing (a) General rule.—The commission shall adopt guidelines for sentencing within the limits established by law which shall be considered by the sentencing court in determining the appropriate sentence for defendants who plead guilty or nolo contendere to, or who were found guilty of, felonies and misdemeanors. The guidelines shall: (1) Specify a range of sentences applicable to crimes of a given degree of gravity. (2) Specify a range of sentences of increased severity for defendants previously convicted of or adjudicated delinquent for one or more misdemeanor or felony offenses committed prior to the current offense. For purposes of this section “previously convicted or adjudicated delinquent” shall include any finding of guilt or adjudication of delinquency whether or not sentence has been imposed or disposition ordered prior to the commission of the current offense.”
    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.