438 Pa. Super. 333 - Commonwealth v. Surina’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently July 2017
8 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 McKnight v. Commonwealth · Commonwealth v. Dugger · Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance v. Edwards · Commonwealth v. Sam · Commonwealth v. Cohen
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A motion in limine is a procedure for obtaining a ruling on the admissibility of evidence prior to or during trial, but before the evidence has been offered.” [Commonwealth v. Johnson, 399 Pa.Super. 266 , 269 582 A.2d 336, 337 (1990), aff'd, 534 Pa. 51 , 626 A.2d 514 (1993)]. Our Court reviews the grant of such motion “by applying the [standard] of review appropriate to the particular evidentiary matter at issue.” Id. We note that this Court may reverse rulings on the admissibility of evidence only if it is shown that the trial court abused its discretion. See Commonwealth v. Sam, 535 Pa. 350 , 635 A.2d 603 (1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1115 , 114 S.Ct. 2123 , 128 L.Ed.2d 678 (1994). Further, if in reaching a conclusion the trial court overrides or misapplies the law, “discretion is then abused and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct the error.” Commonwealth v. Bellini, 333 Pa.Super. 526, 532 , 482 A.2d 997, 999 (1984), quoting Prescott v. Prescott, 284 Pa.Super. 430, 435 , 426 A.2d 123, 125 (1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““[t]he Commonwealth’s certification that its prosecution is substantially handicapped is ‘not contestable.’ The certification, ‘in and of itself, precipitates and authorizes the appeal.’ ” Commonwealth v. Apollo, 412 Pa.Super. 453, 456 , 603 A.2d 1023, 1025 (1992), appeal denied, 531 Pa. 650 , 613 A.2d 556 (1992), quoting Commonwealth v. Dugger, 506 Pa. 537, 545 , 486 A.2d 382, 386 (1985).”
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.