Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 444 Pa. Super. 377 - Commonwealth v. Kelley

444 Pa. Super. 377 - Commonwealth v. Kelley’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2016

18 state decisions

80199520002010decided

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. Devers · Commonwealth v. Stoyko · Commonwealth v. Edwards · Commonwealth v. Prosdocimo · Commonwealth v. Hess

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

  1. “(a) A person commits the crime of ter-roristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: (1) commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “there does not need to be any direct contact between the perpetrator and the victim[,]” the victim’s receipt of the communication is not required. (Trial Ct. Op., at 3; see also Appellee’s Brief, at 11). We disagree with this interpretation of the case. In Kelley , the defendant argued that the Commonwealth failed to present a prima facie case at the preliminary hearing where”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “that the person to whom [a]ppellant communicated the threat was actually frightened.”
    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.