375 Pa. Super. 176 - Commonwealth v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 1990
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Walzack · Commonwealth v. Hickman · Commonwealth v. Shoatz · 344 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Williams
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 2 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
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.