Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 386 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Perry

386 Pa. Super. 534 - Commonwealth v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently August 2018

20 state decisions

801989199020002010decided

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 Pennsylvania v. Finley · Commonwealth v. Turner · Commonwealth v. Isabell · Commonwealth v. Sangricco · 381 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Harris

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

  1. “If the alleged error is thought to be the result of an erroneous computation of sentence by the Bureau of Corrections, then the appropriate vehicle for redress would be an original action in the Commonwealth Court challenging the Bureau’s computation. If, on the other hand, the alleged error is thought to be attributable to ambiguity in the sentence imposed by the trial court, then a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum lies to the trial court for clarification and/or correction of the sentence imposed. It [is] only when the petitioner challenges the legality of a trial court’s alleged failure to award credit for time served as required by law in imposing sentence, that a challenge to the sentence [is] deemed cognizable as a due process claim in PCRA proceedings.”
    2 later decisions 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.