Commonwealth v. Getz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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

1. “The general rule' in Pennsylvania is that a defendant may appeal only from a final judgment qf sentence and an appeal from any prior order will be quashed as interlocutory. An ARD determination provides no exception .to the general rule. Rather, it constitutes a non-final proceeding in which the resoluT tion of the criminal prosecution is merely held in abeyance. Acceptance of ARD is an interlocutory matter -and consequently is not appealable.... [P]roceeding'under the ARD-program is not a right. [An a]ppellant’s remedy, if he is dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the ARD program, is to notify the trial court and the [district attorney] regarding his non-acceptance .... [T]he trial court may then enter a non-appealable interlocutory order terminating [the] appellant’s participation in the program. [The a]ppellant’s case would then proceed to the trial which has been postponed during, the term of [the] appellant’s participation in the ARD program.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Horn