Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 431 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Williams

431 Pa. Super. 167 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
July 1996
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Kremer v. Grant · Shiomos v. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT BD. · Commonwealth v. Isabell · Commonwealth v. Dickerson · 401 Pa. Super. 477 - Commonwealth v. Eyster

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

  1. “(a.l) Previous conviction.—For purposes of this section, it shall be deemed that a defendant has been convicted of another drug trafficking offense when the defendant has been convicted of another offense under section 13(a)(14), (30) or (37) of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or of a similar offense under any statute of any state or the United States, whether or not judgment of sentence has been imposed concerning that offense.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(iii) upon the first conviction when the amount of the substance involved is at least 100 grams; four years in prison and fine of $25,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity and, upon conviction of another offense subject to sentencing under this section: seven years in prison and $50,000 or such larger amount as is sufficient to exhaust the assets utilized in and the proceeds from the illegal activity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “clearly directs a sentencing court to determine, at the time of sentencing, whether the defendant has a previous conviction under the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, and if so, to impose the mandatory minimum 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.