Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 395 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Clever

395 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Clever’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
October 1999
most recently cited

19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Commonwealth v. Riggins · Commonwealth v. Clark · Commonwealth v. Devers · 369 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Losch

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

  1. “". . . the sentencing function is a matter vested in the sound discretion of the trial court whose judgment will not be disturbed by an appellate court in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [citations omitted]. When reviewing sentencing matters, we must accord the sentencing court great weight as it is in the best position to view the defendant's character, displays of remorse, defiance or indifference, and the overall effect and nature of the crime. [citation omitted]."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In every case where the court imposes a sentence outside the sentencing guidelines adopted by the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing ... the court shall provide a contemporaneous written statement of the reason or reasons for the deviation from the guidelines. Failure to comply shall be grounds for vacating the sentence and resentencing the defendant.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he determination of whether a particular issue constitutes a substantial question must be evaluated on a case by case basis. However, we will be inclined to allow an appeal where an appellant advances a colorable argument that the [sentencing] judge’s actions were: (1) inconsistent with a specific provision of the Sentencing Code; or (2) contrary to the fundamental norms which underlie the sentencing process.”
    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.