Commonwealth v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently October 1990 · most notably Commonwealth v. Gravely (1979), Commonwealth v. Waters (1978)
60 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 Lego v. Twomey · United States v. Radio Television News Directors Ass'n · Commonwealth v. Blair · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Butler v. Rundle · Commonwealth v. Fortune
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since Blair , this Court has repeatedly emphasized the need to include issues in written motions in order to preserve them for review. The exception to Blair which was created in Commonwealth v. Grace, 473 Pa. 542 , 375 A.2d 721 (1977), and is applied as “controlling” in this case, not only permits but actually fosters violations of Rule 1123. A trial court which has objections to a verdict presented to it by way of a written memorandum on the day of argument, rather than by written motion within the time limits specified by the rule, knows that it may safely engage in the practice condemned by Blair by proceeding to consider such objections on the merits. Under the majority’s reasoning, the violation of Rule 1123 by both trial attorney and trial court not only results in no sanctions, but also assures the offending party of full appellate review. Id. 476 Pa. at 454 , 383 A.2d at 188.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . Appellant's written post-trial motions were boiler plate challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Although counsel apparently made more specific oral motions that were considered by the court, the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure, rule 1123(a), 19 P.S. Appendix, requires written post-trial motions. "The practice in some judicial districts of ignoring the requirements of Rule 1123(a) is condemned. Henceforth, issues not presented in compliance with the rule will not be considered by our trial and appellate courts."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“. . . [A] rule of procedure adopted by a court of common pleas cannot be used as a means to circumvent our rules of procedure.”
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.