Commonwealth v. Terry’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Zettlemoyer v. Fulcomer (1991), Peterkin H v. Jeffes H (1988)
6 federal appellate · 93 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 Chapman v. State of California · Batson v. Kentucky · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Beck v. Alabama · Lockhart v. McCree
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]sychiatric testimony relevant to the cognitive functions of deliberation and premeditation is competent on the issue of specific intent to kill. Thus psychiatric testimony is competent in Pennsylvania on the issue of specific intent to kill if it speaks to mental disorders affecting the cognitive functions necessary to formulate a specific intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a prosecution is for a violation of the same statutes and is based on the same facts as a former prosecution, it is barred by such former prosecution under the following circumstances: (1) The former prosecution resulted in an acquittal. There is an acquittal if the prosecution resulted in a finding of not guilty by the trier of fact or in a determination that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. A finding of guilty of a lesser included offense is an acquittal of a greater inclusive offense, although the conviction is subsequently set aside.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“did not make all expert psychiatric testimony on the issues of sanity, malice, specific and general intent admissible or relevant.... Such testimony must be definite and specific and address a recognized defense under Pennsylvania substantive law. Nor did [Walzack and its progeny] change the rule that expert testimony offered to prove a medico-legal fact, such as causation, is incompetent and inadmissible unless it speaks to more than a mere possibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Saranchak v. Beard
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.