422 Pa. Super. 224 - Commonwealth v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Cosmas v. Bloomingdales Bros., Inc. (1995), Commonwealth v. Ellis (1997)
52 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 Barber v. Page · Kashif v. United States · Poola v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW · Klusman v. Bucks County Court of Common Pleas · Board of Governors v. MCorp Financial, Inc.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under th[e] [co-conspirator] exception, the out of court declarations of a co-conspirator may be introduced against another co-conspirator provided three requirements are satisfied. [First,] [t]he prosecution must prove the existence of a conspiracy between the declarant and the defendant against whom the evidence is being offered. Once this requirement is satisfied[,] the Commonwealth must show that the statements were made during the course of the conspiracy, and finally that the statements were made in furtherance of the common design. The Commonwealth is only required to prove the existence of a conspiracy by a fair preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the Commonwealth need not establish such a preponderance by direct evidence. Rather, a conspiracy, for purposes of the co-conspirator exception, may be inferentially established by showing the relation, conduct or circumstances of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth. (1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s attorney all of the following requested items or information, provided they are material to the instant case. (f) any tangible objects, including documents, photographs, fingerprints, or other tangible evidence Pa.R.Crim.P. 305(B)(1)(f) (emphasis supplied).”
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.