372 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Felix’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 381 Pa. Super. 1 - Commonwealth v. Anderson (1988), 414 Pa. Super. 442 - Commonwealth v. Scullin (1992)
56 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. Sessoms · 367 Pa. Super. 511 - Commonwealth v. Krum · Commonwealth v. Terry
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We note, however, that we do not recommend the above Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) statement as a model for future cases. In Commonwealth v. Douglass, [ 370 Pa.Super. 104 , 535 A.2d 1172 (1987) (Kelly, J., concurring)], this author explained: [T]he mandate of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b) is not fulfilled by the mere incantation of the language of one of the subprovisions of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(c). Our former practice was struck down as having improperly enlarged an appellant’s right to appeal. Would a construction of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9781(b) and Pa.R.A.P. 2119(f) which merely required the incantation of conclusions of law or particular statutory language have any real or practical effect on the decision of whether to grant allowance of appeal? Assuredly not. Our Supreme Court explained: Our insistence on separate presentation of these issues is more than mere formalism; important concerns of substance guide this decision. In addition to preserving the respective rights of both parties according to the jurisdictional scheme provided by the legislature, it furthers the purpose evident in the Sentencing Code as a whole of limiting any challenges to the trial court’s evaluation of the multitude of factors impinging on the sentencing decision to exceptional cases. Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki, [ 513 Pa. 508, 513 , 522 A.2d 17, 19-20 (1987) ]. This purpose can only be effectuated if this Court requires that appellant’s concise statement contain specific allegations of fact, rather than mere conclusions”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.