Commonwealth v. Goldhammer’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. Anderson (1994), McCray v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2005)
2 federal appellate · 102 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 924
Relies on North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. DiFrancesco · United States v. Scott · Rodriquez v. United States · Commonwealth v. Clair
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“upsets the original sentencing scheme of the trial court,”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The power to grant the relief sought by the Commonwealth is vested in our appellate courts by virtue of 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 706 ... Certainly a remand to reconsider a sentence, where the disposition by an appellate court has altered the sentencing scheme of the trial court, is within the purview of this statutory provision. Where one, convicted of several crimes, successfully challenges his judgment of sentence on appeal, remand for resentencing "may be just under the circumstances,” as it may further the sentencing court’s plans for protection of society from future criminal activity and rehabilitation of the criminal and “reduce the possibility of disparate and irrational sentencing.” [Citation omitted]. Goldhammer , at 593, 517 A.2d at 1283 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An appellate court may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside or reverse any order brought before it for review, and may remand the matter and direct the entry of such appropriate order, or require such further proceedings to be had as may be just under the circumstances.”
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.