Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
September 2004
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Linkletter v. Walker · Commonwealth v. Kates · 234 Pa. Super. 31 - Commonwealth v. Davis · 267 Pa. Super. 163 - Commonwealth v. Mallon
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to support a revocation of parole, the Commonwealth need only show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a parolee violated his parole. Commonwealth v. Smith, 368 Pa.Super. 354, 358 , 534 A.2d 120, 122 (1987), appeal denied, 518 Pa. 639 , 542 A.2d 1368 (1988). In Smith , the court reasoned that “the primary purpose of a parole revocation hearing is not to determine whether the parolee has, in fact, been convicted of a crime, rather its purpose is to determine whether ... parole remains a viable means of rehabilitation and deterring future antisocial conduct.” Id. at 358 , 534 A.2d at 122 , citing Commonwealth v. Kates, 452 Pa. 102 , 305 A.2d 701 (1973), and Commonwealth v. Parker, 244 Pa.Super. 113 , 366 A.2d 941 (1976).”
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.