Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 444 Pa. Super. 545 - Commonwealth v. Evans

444 Pa. Super. 545 - Commonwealth v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 2022

5 state decisions

201995200020102020decided

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 Poola v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW · Commonwealth v. Howard · Bentivoglio v. Ralston · Commonwealth v. Manigault · 371 Pa. Super. 315 - Commonwealth v. Delligatti

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

  1. “1. The witness is so hostile or prejudiced against the party expected to call him that there is a small possibility of obtaining unbiased truth; 2. The testimony of such a witness is comparatively unimportant, cumulative, or inferior to that already presented; 3. The uncalled witness is equally available to both parties; 4. There is a satisfactory explanation as to why the party failed to call such a witness; 5. The witness is not available or not within the control of the party against whom the negative inference is desired; and 6.The testimony of the uncalled witness is not within the scope of the natural interest of the party failing to produce him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “peculiarly within the knowledge and reach”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.