Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 369 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Berrigan

369 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Berrigan’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 386 Pa. Super. 29 - Commonwealth v. Jackson (1989), 411 Pa. Super. 371 - Harmotta v. Bender (1992)

32 state decisions

12019871990200020102020decided

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 Patton v. Yount · Paulussen v. Herion · Reilly v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Commonwealth v. Colson · Commonwealth v. Scott

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

  1. “(1) a woman who owned stock in [the company whose property was allegedly damaged by the defendants] but who stated that the impact of any decision in the case on her financial well-being would be ‘very minute ... ’; (2) a vice president for marketing of a company which [like the company whose property was damaged] had some government defense contracts ...; (3) the daughter of a man who worked as a manager in [the company whose property was allegedly damaged by the defendants] but who was not involved in the manufacture of ... equipment [like that allegedly destroyed by the defendants] ...; and (4) a title researcher who frequently worked in the ... courthouse [where the case was being tried].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) when a venireman has such a close relationship be it familial, financial, or situational, with any of the parties, counsel, victims, or witnesses that a likelihood of prejudice should be presumed, and (2) when a venireman’s answers and conduct demonstrate likelihood of prejudice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he largely unfettered sentencing discretion afforded a judge is better exercised by one without hint of animosity toward appellant.... [A] defendant is entitled to sentencing by a judge whose impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.