386 Pa. Super. 626 - Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
18 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 807 · 10 U.S.C. § 809 · 10 U.S.C. § 827 · 10 U.S.C. § 830 · 10 U.S.C. § 831 · 10 U.S.C. § 832 · 10 U.S.C. § 836 · 10 U.S.C. § 839
Relies on McMillan v. Pennsylvania · United States v. DiFrancesco · McKnight v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Wright · Commonwealth v. Sojourner
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“appli[es] to accomplices who did not visibly possess a firearm during the commission of the crime or crimes in question. Pennsylvania law is clear that a sentencing court must apply the provision ' of [Ejection 9712 to an unarmed accomplice who had knowledge that his co-felon visibly possessed a firearm during the commission of the joint crimes.”
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.