405 Pa. Super. 110 - Commonwealth v. Kopp’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2018
6 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 · Klusman v. Bucks County Court of Common Pleas · 369 Pa. Super. 192 - Commonwealth v. Losch · Commonwealth v. Simione · 372 Pa. Super. 145 - Commonwealth v. Felix
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The function of a bill of particulars ... is to give notice to the accused of the offense charged in order to permit him to prepare a defense, avoid surprise, and be placed on notice as to any restrictions upon the Commonwealth’s proof. Where the bill of particulars is broader than the actual evidence at trial, there is no error; conversely, however, where the bill of particulars specifically limits proof to be adduced at trial to specific acts, the Commonwealth is not permitted to obtain a conviction on the offense charged by proof of acts other than those specified in the bill.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a substantive change of the elements of the crime,”
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.