Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 524 Pa. 162 - Commonwealth v. Porter

Commonwealth v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Porter (1999), Commonwealth v. Morris (1996)

27 state decisions

2201990200020102020decided

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 Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub · Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer · Commonwealth v. Story · Commonwealth v. Frey

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]n order to prevail on the instant issue it would be incumbent upon appellant to demonstrate that trial counsel's failure to specifically ask prospective jurors if they would automatically vote to impose the death penalty resulted in the impanelling of a jury on which one or more jurors were so predisposed. * * * The mere fact that counsel may not have posed the specific question as to whether a prospective juror would vote for a sentence of life imprisonment in an appropriate case does not justify the conclusion that counsel failed to assure that a fair and impartial jury was selected. Such a talismanic requirement would clearly place form above substance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[a]t all events there were no such records that appellant did or ever suffer from a mental defect or injury. Prior to sentencing, the trial court had appellant examined. The examination established that there was then and none before, evidence of thought disorder or psychosis. The court allowed the appellant’s mother to testify as to his mental condition. She did as best she could. The court did not err in refusing a continuance when there was no showing that a report favorable to the contention existed.”
    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.