Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 420 PA 111 - Commonwealth v. Kulik

Commonwealth v. Kulik’s Empirical Analysis

1966

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
January 1976
most recently cited

15 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"This case presents the question of what action this Court should take when a trial judge alters the official stenographer’s transcript of testimony without following the procedures provided for in the Act of May 11, 1911, P. L. 279, §4, 12 P.S. §1199. We have concluded that for the proper administration of the judicial system in this Commonwealth a trial judge must strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the Act and that, therefore, a new trial must he granted to the appellant. "We feel confident that the trial judge’s correction of the record was done in order to make the record consistent with the language he used in directing the jury. We are satisfied that the trial judge acted in complete good faith and with a desire to have the record correctly reflect the proceedings in the trial. This, however, goes only to the question of whether any harm was done to the appellant. We feel that regardless of whether appellant was prejudiced or not, the sanctity of the official stenographer’s transcript of testimony is of such significance that we cannot allow even a non-prejudieial change of that transcript without following the procedure established by the Legislature. It is incumbent on this Court to establish and maintain the most stringent standards in this area. “Since the Act of May 11, 1911 sets forth the procedure that must be followed in order to correct the official stenographer’s transcribed notes of testimony, after they have been lodged with the prothonotary o”
    2 later decisions 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.