Commonwealth v. Talley’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 1999 · most notably Commonwealth v. Simmons (1995), Commonwealth v. Scott (1976)
36 state decisions
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 Berger v. United States · Commonwealth v. Meyers · Commonwealth v. Potter · Commonwealth v. Lipscomb · Harris v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule provides that a defendant may request leave to file additional reasons for a new trial. This does not imply that a defendant can file these as a matter of right, but it is a matter of discretion with the trial court. In the facts of this case, we fail to see an abuse of that discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The instruction should preferably be given immediately after the prejudicial event and repeated in the charge to the jury. . . . [I]t should clearly and firmly advise the jury that the prejudicial event must be disregarded.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a), which is derivative of the rule cited in Talley (19 P.S. 1123) (footnote omitted), states: Rule 1123. Post-Verdict Motions (a) Within ten (10) days after a finding of guilty, the defendant shall have the right to file written motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment. Only those grounds may be considered which were raised in pretrial proceedings or at trial, unless the trial judge, upon cause shown, allows otherwise. Argument, a hearing, or both shall be scheduled and heard promptly after such motions are filed, and only those issues raised and the grounds relied upon in the motions that are stated specifically and with particularity may be argued or heard. If the grounds asserted do not require a transcript, neither the filing, argument, nor hearing of post-verdict motions shall be delayed for lack of a transcript of the notes of testimony. While the earlier version of Rule 1123 permitted additional time to file motions, if allowed by the court within the initial seven-day period, only those motions filed during the seven-day period or within such further time as the Court permitted could be argued at post-trial motions or on appeal. The current Pennsylvania Rule of Criminal Procedure 1123(a) is a recodification of the original Rule 1123 and, in addition to increasing the time for filing motions to ten (10) days (to provide uniformity with the Rules of Civil Procedure), the rule added the provision: ‘If the grounds asserted do not ”
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.