Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 PA 198 - Commonwealth v. Cheatham

Commonwealth v. Cheatham’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

80 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Williams (1990), Commonwealth v. Evans (1986)

80 state decisions

330196819701980199020002010decided

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. Whiting · Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Mining Co. · Commonwealth v. Farrell · Commonwealth v. Woods

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

  1. ““. . . Although ordinarily cross-examination is limited to matters brought out on direct examination, it is clear that an exception exists where the cross-examiner seeks to show bias on the part of the witness. Lenahan v. Pittston Coal Min. Co., 221 Pa. 626 , 70 A. 884 (1908); Commonwealth v. Farrell, 187 Pa. 408 , 41 A. 382 (1898). . In Lenahan, supra, at page 629, this court said: ‘It is always the right of a party against whom a witness is called to show by cross-examination that he has an interest direct or collateral in the result of the trial . . . The right is not to be denied or abridged because incidentally facts may be developed that are irrelevant to the issue and prejudicial to the other party.’ The fact that the cross-examination may also help develop the cross-examiner’s own case is irrelevant where the cross-examination seeks to establish bias on the part of a witness. We are well aware that the scope or limitation of cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial court, and its action will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of such discretion. Commonwealth v. Woods, 366 Pa. 618 , 79 A.2d 408 (1951).””
    7 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.