Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 484 Pa. 261 - Commonwealth v. Tome

Commonwealth v. Tome’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
November 2002
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably Commonwealth v. Musi (1979), McCloskey v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (1983)

33 state decisions

2401979198019902000decided

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 · Harris v. United States · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Hubbard

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

  1. “(b) When more than one offense is alleged to have been committed by one person arising from the same incident, the issuing authority shall accept only one complaint, and shall docket the matter as a single case. (c) Upon application by any interested person and proof that any provision of paragraphs (a) or (b) hereof was violated, a judge of the court may order the forfeiture of all additional costs of the issuing authority accrued by reason of such violation, and thereafter such costs shall not be taxed in the case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mandatory sentencing proceedings set forth by the legislature overrides the double jeopardy clause,”
    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.