Commonwealth v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2003 · most notably Commonwealth v. Parker White Metal Co. (1986), Commonwealth v. Hernandez (1982)
38 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Gault · Kent v. United States · North Carolina v. Butler · Reed v. Reed
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... At the hearing on defendant’s Application to Transfer, defense counsel presented psychiatric evaluations of the defendant, the defendant’s high school records, his grade school records which included psychological and behavioral data and the testimony of the defendant’s father who as the Administrator the Occupational, Vocational and Technical Education Section of Allegheny High School has dealt with juveniles who had been sentenced to various juvenile institutions around the state. Furthermore, since the Suppression Hearing preceded the hearing on the transfer application, the Court was fully informed as to the facts of the case. The Court was cognizant of and the record reflected that the defendant was 15V¿ years of age, he had not been designated as either mentally ill or retarded, the defendant could be imprisoned for more than three years as a result of his crime and the victim was a teenage friend and neighbor of the defendant. From these and other facts available to it, the Court determined that the interest and safety of the community required that the defendant be restrained and treated as an adult.” In light of the preceding quotes, we do not believe appellant was denied any due process rights by the court’s failure to give written reasons for denying the transfer application at the time the decision was made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the statute allows for significant prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to charge a youthful offender with either murder or unlawful killing, thus allowing a prosecutor to invoke the jurisdiction of either criminal or juvenile court. As the United States Supreme Court stated, however in Queenside Hills Co. v. Saxl, 328 U.S. 80, 84-5 , 66 S.Ct. 850, 852 , 90 L.Ed. 1096 (1946): “... The ... lack of equal protection is found in the actual existence of an invidious discrimination, not in the mere possibility that there will be like or similar cases which will be treated more leniently.” (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis added.) Instantly, appellant is able to point to no actual discrimination, and as such, his equal protection claim based on possibilities must fail. See also Commonwealth v. Lewis, 443 Pa. 305 , 279 A.2d 26 (1971).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““... In the present case the record is complete. There is testimony, school records and psychiatric evaluations. The appellate court will have available to it all of the information that was available to the trial court and upon which it based its determination. The Court finds that the purpose for which the written statement is required has been accomplished and the defendant has not been denied his due process rights.””
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.