Commonwealth v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Wright v. City of Philadelphia (2005), 344 Pa. Super. 108 - Commonwealth v. Williams (1985)
2 federal appellate · 52 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 Benton v. Maryland · Hamling v. United States · Cole v. State of Arkansas · Lefkowitz v. Newsome · Commonwealth v. Campana
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Offense defined.-A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with intent to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. (b) Defense.-It is a defense to prosecution for burglary that the building or structure was abandoned. (c) Grading-Burglary is a felony of the first degree. (d) Multiple convictions.-A person may not be convicted both for burglary and for the offense which it was his intent to commit after the burglarious entry or for an attempt to commit that offense, unless the additional offense constitutes a felony of the first or second degree. 1972, Dec. 6, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6,1973, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3502.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or gains entrance by subterfuge or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The doctrine of merger was adopted by this Court because the double jeopardy clause of the Pennsylvania constitution has traditionally been applied only to capital offenses. E.g., Commonwealth v. Baker, 413 Pa. 105 , 196 A.2d 382 (1964). The double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, of course, had not yet been applied to the states. Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. [784], 794, 89 S.Ct. 2056 [2062], 23 L.Ed.2d 707 (1969). See generally Commonwealth v. Campana, 452 Pa. 233, 243-45 , 304 A.2d 432, 436-67 (plurality opinion of Roberts, J.); id., 452 Pa. at 269, 304 A.2d at 446 (Pomeroy, J., dissenting), vacated and remanded, 414 U.S. 808 , 94 S.Ct. 73 , 38 L.Ed.2d 44 (1973), on remand, 455 Pa. 622 , 314 A.2d 854 , cert. denied, 417 U.S. 969 , 94 S.Ct. 3172 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1139 (1974).”
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.