390 Pa. Super. 464 - Commonwealth v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 1995
most recently cited
20 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Coleman v. Alabama · Commonwealth v. Pierce · Jones v. Farm Credit Administration · Corn Belt Bank v. Armstrong · Commonwealth v. Nelson
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... [a] factfinder must conclude that he [defendant] reached an agreement with his co-conspirator to commit the crime. Commonwealth v. Graves, 316 Pa.Super. 484 , 463 A.2d 467 (1983). Direct proof of the corrupt agreement, however, is not necessary. Commonwealth v. Brown, 351 Pa.Super. 119 , 505 A.2d 295 (1986). “An explicit or formal agreement to commit crimes can seldom, if ever, be proved and it need not be, for proof of a criminal partnership is almost invariably extracted from the circumstances that attend its activities.” Commonwealth v. Campbell, 353 Pa.Super. 178 , 509 A.2d 394 (1986) quoting Commonwealth v. Strantz, 328 Pa. 33, 43 , 195 A. 75, 80 (1937) ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) When the attorney for the Commonwealth certifies to the court of common pleas that a preliminary hearing cannot be held for a defendant because the statute of limitations will otherwise bar prosecution, an information is necessary in order to extradite the defendant, or a preliminary hearing cannot be held for other good cause, the court may grant leave to the attorney for the Commonwealth to file an information with the court without a preliminary hearing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We hold only that appellant is not entitled to collateral relief under the Post-Conviction Relief Act where, as here, the absence of a preliminary hearing did not so undermine the truth determining process as to render unreliable the adjudication of guilt."”
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.