Commonwealth v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Commonwealth v. Smith (1992), 431 Pa. Super. 453 - Commonwealth v. Swerdlow (1994)
4 federal appellate · 94 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 Dutton v. Evans · Rideout v. United States · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Eisenstadt v. Baker · National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians
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.
“A claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is a question of law. Evidence will be deemed sufficient to support the verdict when it establishes each material element of the crime charged and the commission thereof by the accused, beyond a reasonable doubt.... When reviewing a sufficiency claim the court is required to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict winner giving the prosecution the benefit of all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]his evidence will now be available at a subsequent trial, and the jury will be given the opportunity to assess its import within the totality of the evidence presented.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The predicate supporting the rejection of hearsay evidence is its assumed unreliability because the declarant from which the statement originates is not before the trier of fact and therefore cannot be challenged as to the accuracy of the information sought to be conveyed. i-s if: sj: ?-s The hearsay concern is not present where statements of an out-of-court declarant are not being offered for the truth of the content of those statements. For instance, a witness may testify to a statement made to him when the purpose of its introduction is the fact that the statement was, in fact, made.... Similarly, we have recognized that out-of-court statements which are offered to prove the declarant’s state of mind are not within the interdiction of the hearsay rule.... ' In this instance the [Appellee] argues the testimonial value of these statements was the effect they had upon the listeners. The key to the admission of evidence for this purpose is that no assertive or testimonial use is sought to be made of the content of the utterance.... The test for relevancy is whether the proffered evidence tends to make a material fact more or less probable.”
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.