Commonwealth v. Contakos’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Commonwealth v. McClendon (1981), 306 Pa. Super. 396 - Commonwealth v. Veneri (1982)
53 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 Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Commonwealth v. Rose · United States of America Ex Rel. Edward Bennett No. H-6720 v. Alfred T. Rundle, Warden of Eastern Correctional Institute, Graterford, Pa · Commonwealth v. Hamm · Commonwealth v. Cain
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i) Definition.—As used in this section "district attorney” includes a special attorney appointed by the Attorney General in the manner provided by statute, an acting district attorney and any assistant district attorney whose authority to act for the district attorney under this section is evidenced by a written designation executed by the district attorney or acting district attorney and filed with the clerk of courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the approval and initialing of the information by an assistant district attorney, along with the stamped signature of the district attorney, complies with our Rules [and] the Judicial Code.. , 6 Id., 492 Pa. at 470 , 424 A.2d at 1287 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A bill of indictment presented by a grand jury has indicia of reliability not [f]ound [sic] in a bill of information. The grand jury has made an independent determination of the sufficiency of the evidence which need merely be ratified by the district attorney. In the case of a bill of information, however, it is the prosecutor alone who must decide whether to bring the defendant to trial. When the vehicle for initiating a criminal trial (i.e. the information) is unsigned, it is not at all apparent that a reasoned evaluation of the advisability of instituting a criminal trial has been made. The signature on the information is, therefore, a vital ingredient which guarantees the authenticity and reliability of the document. The requirement of R. 255(b) that the information be signed by the attorney for the Commonwealth must, as a result, be deemed mandatory rather than merely discretionary.”
1 later decision 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.