Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 443 Pa. Super. 616 - Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt

443 Pa. Super. 616 - Commonwealth v. Rosenfelt’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2015 · most notably Pennsylvania v. Labron (1996), Commonwealth v. White (1995)

37 state decisions

150199520002010decided

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 Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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

  1. “Although the wording of the Pennsylvania Constitution is similar in language to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, we are not bound to interpret the two provisions as if they were mirror images, even where the text is similar or identical.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]s an independent sovereign interpreting its own constitution, which preceded the Federal Bill of Rights, no presumptive validity should be given to United States Supreme Court interpretations of the Federal Constitution.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “§ 8. Security from searches and seizures The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by the affiant.”
    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.