Commonwealth v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hubbard (1977), Commonwealth v. Davenport (1977)
103 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 Mapp v. Ohio · Linkletter v. Walker · McNabb v. United States · Mallory v. United States · Dilliplaine v. Lehigh Valley Trust Co.
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Tt is a fundamental principle of appellate review that we will not reverse a judgment or decree on a theory that was not presented to the trial court, (citations omitted).’ ” 464 Pa. 117, 126 , 346 A.2d 48, 53 (1975), quoting Kimmel v. Somerset County Commissioners, 460 Pa. 381, 384 , 333 A.2d 777, 779 (1975).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellate Courts render a disservice to judicial economy and the efficient operation of our court system where they freely accept issues that could have and should have been first presented to the courts below for their consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . Defense counsel should have been aware that our rules of procedure required a prompt arraignment without an unnecessary delay. If it was ascertained that this direction had been ignored and his client prejudiced thereby, the fact that the penalty for such a violation had not been announced fails to provide an excuse for failing to raise the objection. The ‘manifest unfairness’ would result if we were to penalize police officials for not anticipating the imposition of a sanction for such a violation and at the same time relieve the defense from the responsibility of timely raising the objection. Where a counselled accused sits idly by and fails to raise an objection to improper treatment to which he has been subjected, he will not later be heard to complain but must suffer the consequences of his silence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.