Commonwealth v. Floyd’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently July 2013
18 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 Castor v. United States · Addington v. Texas · 54 Cal. 2d 621 - People v. Gould · 15 Cal. 2d 731 - People v. Kynette · 31 Cal. 2d 555 - People v. Slobodion
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(B) Disclosure by the Commonwealth. (1) Mandatory. In all court cases, on request by the defendant, and subject to any protective order which the Commonwealth might obtain under this rule, the Commonwealth shall disclose to the defendant’s attorney all of the following requested items or information, provided they are material to the instant case. The Commonwealth shall, when applicable, permit the defendant’s attorney to inspect and copy or photograph such items. (d) The circumstances and results of any identification of the defendant by voice, photograph, or in person identification. (E) Remedy. If at any time during the course of the proceedings it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has failed to comply with this rule, the court may order such party to permit discovery or inspection, may grant a continuance, or may prohibit such party from introducing evidence not disclosed, other than testimony of the defendant, or it may enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““witness may testify as to an identification made by another person if and only if such other person is present in court, is available for cross-examination, has testified, has been questioned about the previous identification, and has denied making it____ Applying Waller [Commonwealth v. Waller, 498 Pa. 33 , 444 A.2d 653 (1982) ], we hold that the evidence is admissible only for impeachment and not as substantive evidence.” 2”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.