Commonwealth v. Grazier’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Brown (1983), 317 Pa. Super. 334 - In the Interest of R.R. (1983)
59 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · Sealfon v. United States · United States v. Lanza
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Again, we find the Commonwealth’s attempted distinction to be one of form over substance. In terms of the Mills analysis, a second trial will not be permitted if the interests of the Commonwealth are sufficiently protected at the federal trial . . . Instantly, both the federal government and the Commonwealth’s principal interest is against the crime of arson. While federal mail fraud is a different crime from arson, both statutes as used in this case protect the same government interest. Under these facts, Mills will act as a bar to a state prosecution for arson following an acquittal in federal court for mail fraud in connection with a scheme to commit arson, (pp. 339-840)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[HJenceforth in Pennsylvania, a second prosecution and imposition of punishment for the same offense will not be permitted unless it appears from the record that the interests of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the jurisdiction which initially prosecuted and imposed punishment are substantially different. In other words, if it appears that the interests of this Commonwealth were not sufficiently protected in the initial prosecution, then a second prosecution and imposition of additional punishment in Pennsylvania will be allowed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. ) Is the prosecution the Commonwealth proposes to undertake “based on the same conduct” for which appellant was prosecuted by the federal government? 2. ) Do each of the prosecutions require proof of a fact not required by the other? 3. ) Is the law defining the state offense designed to prevent a substantially different harm or evil than the law defining the federal offense?”
2 later decisions 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.