Commonwealth v. Caplan’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently November 1989 · most notably County of Allegheny v. Commonwealth (1985), Pirillo v. Pirillo (1975)
3 federal appellate · 63 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. Wable · Travis v. Teter · Carpentertown Coal & Coke Co. v. Laird · Bell Appeal · Garratt v. Philadelphia
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As recently as 1955, this Court in Commonwealth v. Wable, 382 Pa. 80, 86 , 114 A.2d 334 , speaking through Chief Justice Stem, said: ‘“The General rule* [the footnote states: ‘Italics throughout, ours’] is that the accused has no right to the inspection or disclosure before trial of evidence in the possession of the prosecution”: 2 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, 1311, 1312, 1354, (citing eases from many jurisdictions)’ ”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The general rule is that the accused has no right to the inspection or disclosure before trial of evidence in the possession of the prosecution . . . “. . . at the very least, a defendant should be required to present exceptional circumstances and compelling reasons such as were present in DiJoseph’s Petition, 394 Pa. 19 , . . . to justify an exception to the general rule. . . . “. . . the lower Court before granting any discovery should at the very least, have conducted a preliminary hearing in order to determine the necessity for discovery and the extent of the discovery if any, which should be granted. . . .””
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.