Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 446 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Walker

446 Pa. Super. 43 - Commonwealth v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably In Re MW (1999), In the Interest of M.W. (1999)

25 state decisions

1201995200020102020decided

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 Gregory v. Frontier Materials, Inc. · Texas v. New Mexico · Commonwealth v. Tuladziecki · In re the Primary Election of May 21, 1991 · Styer v. Hugo

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

  1. “§ 1106. Restitution for injuries to person or property (a)General rule.—Upon conviction for any crime wherein ... the victim suffered personal injury directly resulting from the crime, the offender shall be sentenced to make restitution ...”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In computing the amount of restitution the sentencing court “[s]hall consider the extent of injury suffered by the victim and such other matters as it deems appropriate.” 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 1106(c)(1).” To determine the correct amount of restitution, a “but-for” test is used — damages which occur as a direct result of the crime are those which should not have occurred but for the defendant’s criminal conduct.”
    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.