367 Pa. Super. 173 - Commonwealth v. Allem’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably 372 Pa. Super. 227 - Commonwealth v. Douglass (1988), 386 Pa. Super. 29 - Commonwealth v. Jackson (1989)
41 state decisions
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 McNair's Petition · Sherwood v. Elgart · Commonwealth v. Claypool · Commonwealth v. Genovese · Commonwealth v. Hetherington
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We first hold that the power of all Common Pleas Court Judges to sit as committing district justices, which power existed prior to the adoption of the new Judiciary Article, continues to be retained by the Judges of the Court of Common Pleas. Even if it be assumed arguendo that Riggins should have his original preliminary hearing held before a Judge of the Family Court Division, Section 16(g), supra, specifically provides (we repeat) that ‘the president judge (of the Court of Common Pleas) shall have the power to assign judges from each division to each other division of the court when required to expedite the business of the court.’ It is clear, therefore, that the President Judge has the constitutionally granted power to assign any Judge from any Division of the Court of Common Pleas to any other Division of the Court to sit, consequently, as a committing district justice. Judge Sloane had the jurisdiction, the right and the power to hear the Riggins case on his rearrest and to hold him for action by the grand jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, the decision of an issuing authority to dismiss a complaint is deemed interlocutory, and the Commonwealth’s sole avenue of redress is to bring the matter before another issuing authority before the statute of limitations period expires. Commonwealth v. Genovese, 493 Pa. 65 , 69 n. 7, 425 A.2d 367 , 369 n. 7 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hetherington, 460 Pa. 17, 21-22 , 331 A.2d 205, 208 (1975); Riggins Case, 435 Pa. 321, 323 , 254 A.2d 616, 617 (1969); McNair’s Petition, 324 Pa. 48, 54 , 187 A. 498, 501 (1936). The doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, law of the case, and stare decisis have no operation in such proceedings; rather, the matter is heard de novo.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Initially, we note that judges of the court of common pleas are clearly empowered to sit as issuing authorities. Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.SA. § 912, ‘[ejvery judge of the court of common pleas shall have all the power of a judge or a district justice of the minor judiciary.’ An ‘issuing authority’ is defined as ‘any public official having the power and authority of an alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate, or district justice.’ Pa. R.Crim.P. 3(j). Thus, judges of the court of common pleas have concurrent jurisdiction as issuing authorities with the district justices of each magisterial district within their judicial districts.”
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.