451 Pa. Super. 109 - Commonwealth v. Dunkley’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hoffa v. United States · Gouled v. United States · 275 Pa. Super. 454 - Commonwealth v. Morrison · 395 Pa. Super. 322 - Commonwealth v. Haynes · 314 Pa. Super. 65 - Commonwealth v. Walsh
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing an order granting a motion to suppress, an appellate court may consider only the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses and so much of the Commonwealth’s evidence that, read in the context of the record as a whole, remains uncontradicted. Furthermore, our scope of appellate review is limited primarily to questions of law. We are bound by the suppression court’s findings of fact if those findings are supported by the record. Factual findings wholly lacking in evidence, however, may be rejected. [Citations omitted.]”
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.