439 Pa. Super. 355 - Commonwealth v. Bourgeon’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2005
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on In re the Primary Election of May 21, 1991 · Karis v. Karis · Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. · Commonwealth v. Hardcastle · Commonwealth v. Paquette
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“¶ 27 We have stated that: Our state constitution provides in pertinent part: “In all criminal prosecutions the accused hath a right.. .to meet the witness face to face....” Pa. Const, art. I, § 9. This clause and similar provisions in other state constitutions as well as the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution are firmly rooted in the history of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence .... Case law, history, and the plain language of our constitution establish that in Pennsylvania, the right of confrontation means that a person has the right to meet his accuser face to face in the courtroom.... Though the right to confrontation is important it is not absolute. Face to face confrontation may be the constitutional ideal, but many adjustments and exceptions to the ideal are constitutionally permissible ....”
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.