Commonwealth v. Hess’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. McBride (1991), Commonwealth v. Huggins (2003)
88 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 Fay v. Noia · Commonwealth v. Bolden · Commonwealth v. Hetherington · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Maisenhelder v. Rundle · Commonwealth v. Prado
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]f in fact it is determined at trial that the evidence of the Commonwealth is sufficient to be submitted to the jury, then any deficiency in the presentation before the district justice would have been harmless ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although it has been deemed appropriate to permit immediate review by the court of common pleas of the finding of a prima facie case by the district magistrate, a balancing of the further disruption of the trial process against the harm to the accused weighs in favor of barring immediate appellate review unless “exceptional circumstances” are present. See Commonwealth ex rel. Riggins v. Superintendent of Phila. Prisons, 438 Pa. 160 , 263 A.2d 754 (1970); Commonwealth ex rel. Boatwright v. Hendrick, 436 Pa. 336 , 260 A.2d 763 (1969); Commonwealth v. Lindsley, 241 Pa.Super. 522, 524 , 366 A.2d 310 (1976). Thus, under prior case law it is firmly established that the denial of a habeas corpus claim, based upon the insufficiency of the evidence presented to the issuing authority, without a showing of exceptional circumstances (which have not been argued here), will not provide a basis for immediate appellate review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the unlikely event the district justice and the court of common pleas, having the habeas corpus application, were both in error in their assessment of the Commonwealth's evidence against the accused, the trial would not proceed beyond the demurrer stage. . . . If in fact it is determined at trial that the evidence of the Commonwealth is sufficient to be submitted to the jury, then any deficiency in the presentation before the district justice would have been harmless.”
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.