Commonwealth v. Christy’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Commonwealth v. Pierce (1987), Commonwealth v. Travaglia (1995)
71 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 Strickland v. Washington · Zant v. Stephens · Morris v. Slappy · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Commonwealth v. Hubbard
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"At the sentencing hearing, the Commonwealth argued that the inquiry here is whether 'someone could have been seriously injured,' equating the 'threat of violence' with the 'potential for violence.' The trial court erroneously agreed with this argument. In our view, the language of 42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 (d)(9) is clear as to this point. It is the 'threat of' and not the 'potential for' violence that brings a crime into this category. "Force is not an element of either of these crimes. Indeed, both crimes can be committed without even encountering another person. Every felony has the potential for violence if the actor is caught. This, however, is not what the legislature intended by the words 'threat of violence' to the person. In order for a felony to be includable under 42 Pa. C.S. § 9711 (d)(9), the Commonwealth must present evidence that the defendant actually threatened another with violence or actually used violence on another."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) In addition to its authority to correct errors at trial, the Supreme Court shall either affirm the sentence of death or vacate the sentence of death and remand for the imposition of a life imprisonment sentence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) the sentence of death was the product of passion, prejudice or any other arbitrary factor; (ii) the evidence fails to support the finding of an aggravating circumstance specified in subsection (d); or (iii) the sentence of death is excessive or disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the circumstances of the crime and the character and record of the defendant.”
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.