369 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2006 · most notably 403 Pa. Super. 467 - Commonwealth v. McClendon (1991), 398 Pa. Super. 21 - Commonwealth v. Vanderlin (1990)
30 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 Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Riggins · Commonwealth v. Cabeza · Commonwealth v. Sessoms · 367 Pa. Super. 511 - Commonwealth v. Krum
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.
“(f) Discretionary aspects of sentence. An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter shall set forth in his brief a concise statement of the reasons relied upon for the allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of a sentence. The statement shall immediately precede the argument on the merits with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“when the judge states his reasons for the sentence on the record and in the defendant's presence.”
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.