Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 Pa. 403 - Commonwealth v. Chambers

Commonwealth v. Chambers’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
4
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Stallworth (2001), Commonwealth v. Brown (1998)

2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions

4601991200020102020decided

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 Ker v. State of California · United States v. Di Re · Commonwealth v. Mason · Commonwealth v. Whitney · State v. Castonguay

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

  1. “(a) A law enforcement officer executing a search warrant shall, before entry, give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of his identity, authority and purpose to any occupant of the premises specified in the warrant, unless exigent circumstances require his immediate entry. (b) Such officer shall await a response for a reasonable period of time after his announcement of authority and purpose, unless exigent circumstances require his immediate forcible entry. (c) If the officer is not admitted after such reasonable period, he may forcibly enter the premises and may use as much physical force to effect entry therein as is necessary to execute the search.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “have reason to believe that an announcement prior to entry would imperil their safety”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “... exclusion/suppression of evidence is not an appropriate remedy for every violation of the Pennsylvania Rules of Criminal Procedure concerning searches and seizes. It is only where the violation also implicates fundamental, constitutional concerns, is conducted in bad faith or has substantially prejudiced the defendant that exclusion may be an appropriate remedy.”
    4 later decisions 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.