Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 480 Pa. 38 - Commonwealth v. Stokes

Commonwealth v. Stokes’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
4
states following
October 2019
most recently cited

96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Lovette (1982), Commonwealth v. Davis (1980)

96 state decisions

60019781980199020002010decided

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 Aguilar v. Texas · Spinelli v. United States · Jones v. United States · Draper v. United States · Ker v. State of California

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

  1. ““The law is clear that a warrantless arrest is not lawful unless there is probable cause therefore . . . Whether there is probable cause to arrest without a warrant depends on whether, at the moment a suspect is taken into custody, the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed the offense Thus, in order to arrest without a warrant, the officer must have a reasonable belief in the probability of criminal activity by the person to be arrested. However, that belief need not be grounded in the officer’s direct, personal knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances. It may, instead, rest solely on information supplied by another person where there is a “substantial basis” for crediting that information . This Court has held that information provided by certain classes of persons may be sufficient to establish probable cause. It is well-settled that the uncorroborated confession of an accomplice which implicates the suspect will supply the probable cause for a warrantless arrest . Similarly, the statement of a victim, identifying the perpetrator of a crime, has been found sufficient to establish probable cause for that person’s arrest . Further, information provided by an eyewitness whose identity is known has also been deemed sufficient . Thus, in determining w”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The law is clear that a warrantless arrest is not lawful unless there is probable cause therefor .... Whether there is probable cause to arrest without a warrant depends on whether, at the moment a suspect is taken into custody, the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person to be arrested has committed the offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(A)n admission transmitted through an informant is only as reliable as its conduit is trustworthy.”
    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.