411 Pa. Super. 187 - Commonwealth v. McDonel’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently October 2021
18 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 United States v. Leon · Ker v. State of California · Commonwealth v. Stanley · Commonwealth v. Mason · Commonwealth v. Norris
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) [where] the occupants remain silent after repeated knocking and announcing; 2) [where] the police are virtually certain that the occupants of the premises already know their purpose; 3) [where] the police have reason to believe that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety; and 4) [where] the police have reason to believe that evidence is about to be destroyed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In reviewing the denial of a suppression motion, we must: determine whether the factual findings of the (suppression) court are supported by the record. In making this determination, we consider only the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses and so much of the evidence for the defense, as, fairly read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. If, when so viewed, the evidence supports the factual findings, we are bound by such findings and may only reverse if the legal conclusions drawn therefrom are in error. Commonwealth v. Trenge, 305 Pa.Super. 386 , 451 A.2d 701 (1982).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he officers’ knowledge of appellant’s two-year-old weapons violation combined with their “assumptions” that drug dealers routinely “possess firearms and that such weapons are as much tools of the trade as more commonly recognized drug paraphernalia” was sufficient to create the exigent circumstances necessary to permit forced entry without first affording appellant the opportunity to surrender the premises peaceably.”
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.