Commonwealth v. Moss’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Commonwealth v. Jones (2010), 422 Pa. Super. 153 - Commonwealth v. Quiles (1993)
43 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · Commonwealth v. McCutchen · Commonwealth v. Richman · Commonwealth v. Stokes
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would appear, however, that the approach suggested [by appellant] would greatly expand the rule of ... Dixon_ We did not hold in Dixon , and we have never held, that a suspect must be informed of each and every crime under investigation. On the contrary, we have consistently held that the Commonwealth, in meeting its burden of proving a waiver was knowing and intelligent, may establish the circumstances attending the interrogation and the lack of ambiguity as to the questioning’s direction and purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(A) the impact of the offense on the victim or victims; (B) the impact of the offense on the community; (C) the threat to the safety of the public or any individual posed by the child; (D) the nature and circumstances of the offense allegedly committed by the child; (E) the degree of the child’s culpability (F) the adequacy and duration of dispo-sitional alternatives available under this chapter and in the criminal justice system; and (G) whether the child is amenable to treatment, supervision or rehabilitation as a juvenile by considering the following factors: (I) age; (II) mental capacity; (III) maturity; (TV) the degree of criminal sophistication exhibited by the child; (V) previous records, if any; (VI) the nature and extent of any pri- or delinquent history, including the success or failure of any previous attempts by the juvenile court to rehabilitate the child; (VII) whether the child can be rehabilitated prior to the expiration of the juvenile court jurisdiction; (VIII) probation or institutional reports, if any; (IX) any other relevant factors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[There is an] appropriate limited scope of review of certification decisions.... “[W]e will not set aside a certification unless an appellant demonstrates that the court committed a gross abuse of discretion.” A gross abuse of discretion is not demonstrated by merely reciting facts of record that would support a result contrary to the court’s actual decision.”
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.