375 Pa. Super. 419 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably 391 Pa. Super. 418 - Commonwealth v. Pigg (1990), 444 Pa. Super. 170 - Commonwealth v. Henderson (1995)
32 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. Sessoms · 367 Pa. Super. 511 - Commonwealth v. Krum · 355 Pa. Super. 276 - Pekular v. Eich · 328 Pa. Super. 60 - Commonwealth v. Royer
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.
“(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 · from the majority“A judge could fulfill his responsibilities under both the guidelines and the Act by: 1) considering the minimum sentence range suggested by the guidelines; 2) stating on the record his reasons for deviating from the guidelines and applying the Act; and 3) imposing a sentence without a minimum term of confinement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“A legality issue is essentially a claim that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to impose the sentence that it handed down.... A trial court ordinarily has jurisdiction to impose any sentence which is within the range of punishments which the legislature has authorized for the defendant's crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.