Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 497 Pa. 437 - Commonwealth v. Pierce

Commonwealth v. Pierce’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Commonwealth v. Bell (1986), Commonwealth v. Goldhammer (1985)

2 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

25019821990200020102020decided

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 267 Pa. Super. 163 - Commonwealth v. Mallon · Commonwealth v. Colding · Commonwealth v. Burrell · 269 Pa. Super. 122 - Commonwealth v. Johnson · 259 Pa. Super. 143 - Commonwealth v. Nickens

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

  1. “(1) An order of probation. (2) A determination of guilt without further penalty. (3) Partial confinement. (4) Total confinement. (5) A fine.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Appellant’s claim that his sentence is violative of the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy clause is based upon the Superior Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Johnson, 269 Pa.Super. 122 , 409 A.2d 94 (1979). We disagree and reject the Superior Court’s ruling in Commonwealth v. Johnson, supra.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[wjhere a defendant’s original sentence consists solely of a term of probation, this court has held in Commonwealth v. Colding, 482 Pa. 112 , 393 A.2d 404 (1978), that revocation of probation and imposition of a term of total confinement is not violative of the double jeopardy clause, since the defendant was given one conditional sentence which merely deferred sentencing defendant to a fixed term of confinement until such time appellant violated the conditions of his probation.”
    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.