Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 420 Pa. Super. 484 - Commonwealth v. Moore

420 Pa. Super. 484 - Commonwealth v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 435 Pa. Super. 499 - Commonwealth v. Koren (1994), 2004 Pa. Super. 79 - Commonwealth v. Walls (2004)

32 state decisions

160199220002010decided

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 Schmerber v. State of California · Hayes v. Lockhart · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · Karis v. Karis · Kremer v. Grant

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

  1. “‘In determining whether a particular sentence is “clearly unreasonable” or “unreasonable,” the appellate court must consider the defendant’s background and characteristics as well as the particular circumstances of the offense involved, the trial court’s opportunity to observe the defendant, the pre-sentence investigation report, if any, the Sentencing Guidelines as promulgated by the Sentencing Commission, and the “findings” upon which the trial court based its sentence.’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A sentencing court has broad discretion in choosing the range of permissible confinements which best suits a particular defendant and the circumstances surrounding his crime. However, the choices must be “consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense, and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “An appellant who challenges the discretionary aspects of a sentence in a criminal matter [to] set forth in [her or] his brief a concise statement of reasons relied upon for allowance of appeal with respect to the discretionary aspects of the sentence. The statement shall immediately precede the argument on the merits with respect to the discretionary aspects of sentence.”
    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.